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

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

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.