Re: RFS: dnshistory (updated package)

[Matthias Julius <mdeb@julius-net.net>]

Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> writes:

> Typically the fear which motivates this type of question is unfounded.
> Looking at the dnshistory source code, it appears that the use of BDB
> is trivial.  Generally when the feature set you require could just
> as easily have been satisfied by GDBM, there are rarely compatibility
> worries.  dnshistory is using simple B-trees, which haven't changed
> incompatibly in over 5 years.
>
> If, in a future BDB version, the database file created by dnshistory
> is using too old a format, the attempt to open it would return
> DB_OLD_VERSION, and you could add code to dnshistory to DB->upgrade()
> the file, seamlessly resolving the issue.
>
> It would be a different story if dnshistory were using transactions
> or other subsystems.
>
> I believe this is a clear case of build-depending on libdb-dev being
> the proper solution.

Thank you for your explanation.  I will keep it as it is then.

And since the database format did not change from 4.6 to 4.7 there
should be nothing for the user to worry about.

I will take care of the other issues and upload a new package to
mentors soon.

Matthias