Re: /usr/include/db1/ndbm.h no more in libc6 ...
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:45:56AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:27:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:18:27AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:19:04AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Hello, ...
> > > >
> > > > I have a package who used to use /usr/include/db1/ndbm.h to build ndbm
> > > > support, which worked fine with libc6 versions prior to 2.3.1.
> > > >
> > > > Now, this file seem to have vanished from the latest libc6. Is that an
> > > > intentional thing, and if yes, what are the new way of using dbm support ?
> > > >
> > > > I currently hacked my package so it use the gdbm-ndbm.h from
> > > > libgdbmg1-dev, which seems to work, and am about to send a patch
> > > > upstream about this, but would want to know what exactly is going on, so
> > > > i can provide a cleaner patch that may also be working in the future.
> > >
> > > You can also use the dbm interfaces in all the libdb packages (including
> > > the latest db4.0). They are all binary compatible on-disk formats.
> >
> > Well, my problem is that the package does not enable the support at
> > compile time when it does not detect a ndbm.h. So i would have to build
> > depend on a package providing an ndbm.h (currently it looks at
> > /usr/include, /usr/include/db1 and /usr/include/gdbm) but is not happy
> > for a gdbm-ndbm.h.
>
> No, you have to have a correct configure check. Lots of programs use dbm
> interfaces, and look in ndbm.h, gdbm.h anbd db.h to do it.
Ok, will do it, it was for doing this that i looked for info.
> > > db1 support in glibc 2.2 was hacked in. It was never there upstream. For
> > > glibc 2.3, we dropped the hack. The db1-compat package provides binary
> >
> > Ok, but a changelog entry would have been handy.
>
> Change log says we dropped db1 support. The changelog is not a place to
> put workarounds.
Ok, i did a grep for dbm, so i did not found it, sorry.
> > Mmm, it provides a /usr/include/db.h though, and not a /usr/include/ndbm.h,
> > are those the same things ?
>
> Why not look in the header and see? Why not read the db4.0 docs and see
> what it says about dbm?
Sorry, i will look at it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: