Re: Fwd: Re: DB_LOG_AUTOREMOVE: how does it work?

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

Howard Chu writes:
>Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>><Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe we can commit the back-bdb patch behind an ifdef,
>>> and place the BerkeleyBDB patch in build/berkeleydb42.patch?
>>
>> Hm... does having the 3rd patch in place generate a different version
>> string for BDB?  If someone builds OpenLDAP with the OL piece of the
>> patch, but not the BDB piece of the patch, it simply won't work.  We'd
>> definitely need a way to test for BDB being a patched version.
>
> Currently it doesn't, but I guess we can patch the version macros as
> well. Yes, we definitely need a way to detect the patch, and probably a
> runtime check to abort the startup if the wrong library somehow gets
> attached...

If the bdb patch defines a variable and openldap accesses it, patched
openldap + unpatched bdb should fail at link time.

I don't remember if the bdb patch is harmless to a caller which does not
know about the patch - if so, openldap could set the bdb variable and
bdb could invoke the new behaviour only if the variable is true.

-- 
Hallvard