Re: dblibs
Le Wed, Jul 07, 1999 at 08:58:03AM -0400, Kermit Tensmeyer écrivait:
> Why must the system need (db 1.85, db 2.1.2, db 2.4.3 <and with the
> new potato db 2.6.X>)? From the list of things that broke when I
> upgraded then only software that seemed to have a real dependence
> might be the nss_db code.
>
> bind, exim, sendmail, xemacs all prefer the newer db libararies. In
> order to use the previous version (1.85) each product has to eliminate
> basic functionality.
>
> Is there some (not so obvious) reason why this products have not been
> rebuilt with the latest version of the libraries?
Backward compatibility.
> Ouch! libdb 2.4.14 has well known deficenies. See the changes file
> as www.sleepycat.com. This is at least 18 months old. keeping abreast
> of the bug-fixes and subsitent library upgrades would seem to be a
> critical priority, would it not?
I don't know if we have libdb 2.4.24 but that's the version number
menionned in /usr/include/libdb.h ...
You may ask directly to Joel Klecker the libc maintainer for more
information about which version is in libc ...
Cheers,
--
Hertzog Raphaël >> 0C4CABF1 >> http://prope.insa-lyon.fr/~rhertzog/
Reply to:
- References:
- dblibs
- From: Kermit Tensmeyer <kermit@brite.net>
- Re: dblibs
- From: Raphael Hertzog <rhertzog@hrnet.fr>
- Re: dblibs
- From: Kermit Tensmeyer <kermit@brite.net>
- Re: dblibs
- From: Raphael Hertzog <rhertzog@hrnet.fr>
- Re: dblibs
- From: Kermit Tensmeyer <kermit@brite.net>