[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Berkeley DB in our source tree?

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2000-08-11 03:14:02 CEST

On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 04:15:46PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > So, here's my question: should I just import Berkeley DB into our
> > repository on a vendor branch, or should we simply tell people,
> > "Install Berkeley DB 3.1.4 before you build Subversion" and stay out
> > of it? What would folks prefer?
> Is Berkeley DB specifically required, or any *dbm? (gdbm, sdbm, etc)
> Either way, I'm a fan of modularity, so I'd argue for making it an
> external dependency, though I might argue for including it in the
> release tarball.

I'm with Brian: external dependency. I'm not sure whether we'd put it into
our tarball, or just redist the DB tarball.

Note that part of my reluctance on including the source is due to its
licensing. It is similar to the GPL in the way it requires the app to
distribute *all* source (or be subject to Sleepycat licensing fees).

I also view DB as an optional facility. The default, sure, but I would hope
that we could plug in support for other databases (e.g. MySQL).

In other email, somebody asked how this is different from expat-lite.
Licensing for one, the (medium term?) optional nature for two. APR is
included (by reference) in our config/build process (and release tarballs)
simply because it has no other distribution mechanism right now.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:06 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.