From owner-freebsd-current Tue May 2 17:52:32 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.100.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA0A537BFF8 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 17:52:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA390790; Tue, 2 May 2000 20:52:15 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 20:52:11 -0400 To: Brad Knowles , FreeBSD-CURRENT Mailing List From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: db 1.85 --> 2.x or 3.x? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 1:05 PM +0200 5/2/00, Brad Knowles wrote: > A thread on news.software.nntp got me checking into this, >and now I've gotten very curious. From what I can determine, it >looks like what is integrated into FreeBSD is Berkeley db 1.85 >(in /usr/src/libc/db), although there is a port for 2.7.7 in >/usr/ports/databases/db. If this is an issue for some nntp software, perhaps that port (the freebsd 'port collection' port...) should build and use the newer version of db? Would that help whatever issue got you interested in this? > Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that db 1.85 >is pretty widely known to be broken in a number of ways (see >) Let us assume for the moment that the licensing issues mean that freebsd can't include the newer versions of Berkley db in the main system. Should we consider fixing a few of the nastier problems in 1.85? (whatever those would be...). Or does trying to fix those open a different can of worms? --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message