Then just pass --with-dbm=db1 to the APRUTIL configure. No big deal. Chill.
Cheers,
-g
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:00:45PM -0500, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > I'm assuming that we'll be picking up an APRUTIL dependency by
> > M2. Assuming that is the case, then I'd suggest that you use apr_dbm
> > for the client-side property storage. That will pick up whatever is
> > on the system for the DBM storage, rather than adding a (DB3)
> > dependency to the client.
>
> As a site maintainer for a multiplatform environment, I think this is
> a terrible idea. It would be way too easy for me to naively build
> Solaris and IRIX binaries which use ndbm, NetBSD binaries which use
> db1, and Linux binaries which use db3. Now people's working
> directories (in their shared-filesystem homedirs) simply don't work
> between platforms.
>
> For a server, this sort of thing might be reasonable (although there
> is a serious upgrade issue if anyone ever wants to add or remove a
> database backend or change the default preference order). So I won't
> go so far as to say that this aprutil feature should be expunged from
> the face of the planet. But we certainly shouldn't use it in the wc.
>
> I remain unconvinced that we need a db for the working copy anyway. I
> have sincere doubts that people will ever find a need for more than a
> few properties with relatively short values. (And if we ever do get
> to that point, there are alternatives, such as making a directory for
> properties and putting each property in a different file.)
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:22 2006