[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: unixODBC vs. iODBC

On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 09:53:57PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

>That in turn forces the user to set up each ODBC drivers twice, once for
> each driver manager.

Not true; the driver managers are supposed to share config files.

> Well, the above is mostly true because you can build the program one way 
> and the driver the other way and it might still work, but who really 
> knows?

Hrm?  I periodically test binary compatibility between UnixODBC and iODBC
before uploading new versions of UnixODBC.  In the past, I've also
specifically continued to build some drivers against libiodbc2-dev instead
of unixodbc-dev for testing purposes, but I think I dropped that due to lack
of solid 64-bit support in iODBC at the time.

> Should we somehow declare one or the other as the preferred driver 
> manager, thus making it easier for users and perhaps developers?

Christian and I have discussed this in the past.  He has repeatedly asked
for someone to take over maintenance of iODBC; he's offered it to me, but my
answer was that if no one else wanted to maintain it, I would kill it off

The main reason for not killing it off is indeed the wretched circular
build-dep with Qt.  I'm not willing to drop the Qt-based GUI tools from
UnixODBC, and the Qt maintainers were not willing to fix Qt's inane
build-dependency on ODBC.  This would surely make Qt<->UnixODBC the largest,
ugliest circular build-dep in Debian if not fixed somehow.

> - Both myodbc (MySQL ODBC driver) and psqlodbc (PostgreSQL ODBC driver) 
> build against unixODBC.

and freetds (MSSQL/Sybase ODBC driver).

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: