On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 02:13:59AM GMT, Theo de Raadt wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 08:24:47PM GMT, Theo de Raadt wrote: > >> >Ingo, > >> > > >> >On Mar 05 18:11:31, schwa...@usta.de wrote: > >> >> By the way, lynx(1) removal doesn't really hurt that much. > >> >> Rotten code that will hurt more when it will finally be deleted > >> >> includes, for example, the sqlite3(1) library and file(1). > >> > > >> >can you please elaborate on what's rotten in sqlite? > >> > >> Jan, can you please start from the other end, and provide evidence > >> that the code is of the highest possible quality? > > > >Hi Theo, > > > >Based on the above, Jan hadn't made any such claims so no evidence is > >required. He only asked Ingo to support *his* claim - more info, for > >mere reference, if nothing else, would be greatly appreciated. :^) > > Please run something else. You'll be happier. Really. You don't > need code-fussy people around you.
I'm not unhappy with SQLite, so would genuinely like to know what's so bad about it - it seems Jan would too. Neither Marc nor Stefan consider SQLite *that* badly rotten - Ingo does. Jan would like to get more information about it and so would I. If someone makes a claim, it's only fair to ask them to support it with examples. Now, to jump ahead of your next reply - neither Jan nor myself made any claims. All we would like is some reference. If there's a better equivalent/replacement to SQLite, however, then some more info would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Raf
