[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: HEADS UP: BerkeleyDB 4.2, libldif, etc.

To: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
Subject: RE: HEADS UP: BerkeleyDB 4.2, libldif, etc.
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:18:11 -0800
Cc: "Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com>, openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <HBF.20031204fzw4@bombur.uio.no>
References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031125142158.03cdb688@127.0.0.1> <002b01c3ba50$0f288690$1801a8c0@CELLO> <HBF.20031204fzw4@bombur.uio.no>

At 03:20 AM 12/4/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Howard Chu writes:
>> Why don't we move libldbm into back-ldbm, while we're at it? It really
>> has no purpose of its own.

Okay with me.

>That reminds me:
>
>  ./configure --enable-bdb --enable-ldbm --with-ldbm-api=gdbm
>
>fails with:
>
>  configure: error: LDBM API not compatible with BDB

>Is that beacuse back-bdb used libldbm once?

No. It's because both could use BerkeleyDB and, when so, we
need to ensure they use the same BerkeleyDB.

>If so, configure need not forbid this now.

configure could be reworked to allow separate DB detection
when a non-BDB API was selected for LDBM. 

Kurt

References:
- RE: HEADS UP: BerkeleyDB 4.2, libldif, etc.
  - From: "Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com>
- RE: HEADS UP: BerkeleyDB 4.2, libldif, etc.
  - From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>

Prev by Date: RE: HEADS UP: BerkeleyDB 4.2, libldif, etc.
Next by Date: checking for Berkeley DB link
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread