> Technically gdbm is fine. I doubt you'll be able to displace Berkeley
> DB, though; gdbm is less buggy, but doesn't offer many of the
> features, nor does it offer equivalent performance.
>
>> I'd welcome your comments in particular, since you are an expert in
>> the field and there is not going to be a conflict of interest.
>
> Actually, I'm pretty biased. :-) I'd like to see Berkeley DB 1.85 go
> away for a lot of reasons -- I don't much care what it's replaced
> with.
Well, can you recommend some other alternative? You mentioned db-tests
you created, etc. Did you evaluate any other dbm libraries useable for
us from the licensing perspective?
> Nvi won't require upgrading the library's dbm support. Berkeley DB 3.X
> supports inclusion of multiple DB versions in a single application.
> Nvi's simple solution is to include a copy of DB in the nvi
> distribution.
Well, may be that's how the nvi application will be distributed, but I
doubt, that's how the nvi part of the FreeBSD will be built... In all
probability, the new nvi will just get hacked to work with dbm-1.85 or
gdbm. Although it is possible, that the relevant parts of DB3 will be
linked staticly into it (kind of like DB3 Lite), it would be rather ugly
:(
Thanks,
-mi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
