On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 04:55:25PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 08:21:10PM -0700, Bill Moseley wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:12:52PM -0700, Bill Moseley wrote:
> >> For some reason DB_File is not working like I expect, so I'm wondering
> >> what changed. I'm hoping I'm missing something obvious, which is often the case...
> >For the archive:
> > # apt-get install libdb4.0-util
> > $ db4.0_upgrade *.db
> >That's a nasty upgrade.
> It certainly is. Although I'm not entirely sure how better to address
> this than the changelog entry:
> perl (5.8.0-7) unstable; urgency=low
> * NOTE: DB_File now uses libdb4.0 (previously libdb2). Any DB_File
> databases created with earlier perl packages will need to be
> upgraded before being used with the current module with the
> db4.0_upgrade program (in the libdb4.0-util package, with HTML docs
> in db4.0-doc).
I'm not that clear on the problem. But it's not debian specific, right?
I mean google finds a bunch of posts about DB_File and Perl 5.8.0,
although perhaps those were different issues.
Is it just upgrading to BerkeleyDB 4 that requires rebuilding the db
> I'm loathe to add a debconf note, as there appear to be far too many of
> these already and moreover it presumes that the user is aware that
> they're using DB_File at all (think: packages which use DB_File, such
> as spamassasin).
No kidding. I've got a client on a ISP that uses Debian. I was
wondering about the users of DB_File at the ISP when the ISP upgrades
perl and BerkeleyDB.
- Re: DB_File
- From: Dominique Dumont <email@example.com>
- Re: DB_File
- From: Brendan O'Dea <firstname.lastname@example.org>