Randy McMurchy wrote: > Archaic wrote these words on 04/02/06 22:28 CST: > >> While FSFS means there is a physical copy of the current revision of a >> file, BDB is still needed to index the changes, so perhaps this is a >> stopper afterall? Just out of curiosity, have you tried any db-4.3.x's? > > Didn't see you asked the question about DB-4.3.x. Answer to that > question is: > > DB-4.4.x is in LFS, I don't have any control over that. We *must* > assume that it will be installed as package installation instructions > are created for BLFS. What good would it do to try something that we > cannot use?
We could say that the package doesn't support the use of current version of BDB. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
