Quoting Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@apache.org>:
> --On Monday, October 14, 2002 3:48 AM -0700 Greg Stein
> <gstein@lyra.org> wrote:
>
> > DB4.0 isn't all that common yet, let alone 4.1.
> >
> > IMO, the ideal situation is to allow 4.0 *or* 4.1, and tweak our
> > calls accordingly. In addition, if you're on MacOS X, then require
> > 4.1.
> >
> > So... +0 on requiring 4.1, +1 if coded as above.
>
> The fact that 4.0 isn't all the common yet I believe is all the more
> reason to just require BDB 4.1 and be done with it.
>
> I'm looking at trying to get autoconf to detect the right version of
> BDB (need to export some SVN_FS_GOT_DB_MAJOR variants), and getting
> the checks just right probably exceeds my amount of free time that I
> can dedicate to this.
>
> I realize that you're +0 on requiring 4.1 - do we have enough +1s on
> requiring 4.1 that we don't need to keep 4.0 support? Or, does
> someone with enough autoconf-fu feel like adding that component to my
> patches? Otherwise, it'll have to wait for my schedule to clear a
> bit. -- justin
We already have autocode that extracts the BDB version number; we're checking
for 4.0.14 right now, but there's no reason we couldn't check for 4.1.x, too.
And any part of the code that uses BDB will pull in the BDB headers, so that you
could ifdef on DB_MAJOR and DB_MINOR where necessary. I don't think we need any
new or different autoconfigury at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 16 12:53:03 2002