I notice the default is db3, whilst db4.4 was included in /extra then later
removed - any ideas why?

Why is db3 the default rather than db4?

Martin

Martin J. Green wrote :

> Why is db3 the default rather than db4?

Its seems like there's been some issues with db4 because you find this in
the ChangeLog.txt from Slackware-10.0:
"l/db3-3.3.11-i486-4.tgz: Recompiled. Remains the version used by default
when compiling (for now) if the application links with a generic -ldb.
l/db31-3.1.17-i486-1.tgz: This version, which is specifically required
by certain programs, returns to -current.".

BTW. Of all places you can find db4 in /pasture.
--
Thomas O.

This area is designed to become quite warm during normal operation.

Martin J. Green wrote:
> I notice the default is db3, whilst db4.4 was included in /extra then later
> removed - any ideas why?
>
> Why is db3 the default rather than db4?
>
> Martin
>
>

For anyone who's interested the homepage for the this database (it's
the Berkeley DB) is sleepycat.com...

"Thomas Overgaard" <thover@post2.tele.dk> wrote in message
news4u293-rq5.ln1@news.inet.tele.dk...

> Its seems like there's been some issues with db4 because you find this in
> the ChangeLog.txt from Slackware-10.0:
> "l/db3-3.3.11-i486-4.tgz: Recompiled. Remains the version used by
> default
> when compiling (for now) if the application links with a generic -ldb.
> l/db31-3.1.17-i486-1.tgz: This version, which is specifically required
> by certain programs, returns to -current.".

Ya seen, but I wondered if there was a specific reason for not using it,
which doesn't seem to be documented in the changelog. I appreciate some
programs need 3.1, but any reason for the rest?

> BTW. Of all places you can find db4 in /pasture.

You can find 4.2 in /l, and 4.4 in pasture, but I've compiled the latest and
considering using that as default instead, but wondered if there was a
specific reason not to.

On 2006-01-08, Martin J. Green <martin.green@firstinternetservices.com> wrote:
>
> You can find 4.2 in /l, and 4.4 in pasture, but I've compiled the latest and
> considering using that as default instead, but wondered if there was a
> specific reason not to.

FWIW I recall reading about licensing issues with sleepycat....maybe that
has something to do with the change back....sleepcat is duel
license...again, it's what I recall reading someplace or other.

ken

"No_One" <no_one@no_where.com> wrote in message
news:slrnds2p47.rlu.no_one@localhost.localdomain.. .
> FWIW I recall reading about licensing issues with sleepycat....maybe that
> has something to do with the change back....sleepcat is duel
> license...again, it's what I recall reading someplace or other.

but so's mysql and we include that

On 2006-01-09, Martin J. Green <martin.green@firstinternetservices.com> wrote:
>
> "No_One" <no_one@no_where.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnds2p47.rlu.no_one@localhost.localdomain.. .
>> FWIW I recall reading about licensing issues with sleepycat....maybe that
>> has something to do with the change back....sleepcat is duel
>> license...again, it's what I recall reading someplace or other.
>
> but so's mysql and we include that

Different products, different licenses, different terms...again, I'm not
saying this is the reason....I just recall some discussion in the past about
sleepycat and opensource...

ken

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 19:12:54 +0000, No_One wrote:

> ...sleepcat is duel license...

Damn! We have to fight someone to use it?
--
Chick Tower

For e-mail: aols . sent . towerboy AT xoxy . net