Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 15:11 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Makes sense to me, so let's just do it. Just decide on a version of berkeley db ;-) Done, updated: http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven/ExternalDependencies I was conservative and picked libdb 4.5.20 (released June 2006) as the minimum requirement, as that's as far back as I can vouch for the file format being stable. We can bump it forward as needed. Matthew Barnes ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)
Matthew Barnes wrote: On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 15:11 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: Makes sense to me, so let's just do it. Just decide on a version of berkeley db ;-) Done, updated: http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven/ExternalDependencies I was conservative and picked libdb 4.5.20 (released June 2006) as the minimum requirement, as that's as far back as I can vouch for the file format being stable. We can bump it forward as needed. I didn't get involved in the discussion, but libdb has been universal for such a long time that I don't see any real point in adding it to jhbuild; of course I am fine listing it in ExternalDependencies, this is just my statement of intention wrt the jhbuild modulesets. Cheers, Frederic [looking at the libdb build system while writing this email I'll add technical reasons to avoid it in jhbuild.] ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)
Le mardi 29 septembre 2009, à 11:13 -0400, Matthew Barnes a écrit : For years now, evolution-data-server has been dragging around its own copy of Berkeley DB (libdb) 4.1.25. As I understand the back story, it was originally added to work around libdb's frequently changing on-disk database format at that time, which would break our local address book databases every time the format changed. The database format hasn't been an issue for at least as long as I've been working on Evolution (since 2006). It's dead weight now. We've been dragging it around basically for Sun's benefit since they can't ship their own libdb for licensing reasons, but the Sun maintainers have agreed to let us drop our copy of libdb upstream and they will patch it back in to their own e-d-s package. I believe most distros are already linking evolution-data-server to a system-wide copy of libdb, especially since Ross Burton pointed out the reduction in memory usage by doing so [1]. Not sure what exact version of Berkely DB to recommend. Any reasonably up-to-date version should be sufficient. Makes sense to me, so let's just do it. Just decide on a version of berkeley db ;-) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)
Evolution uses both Berkeley DB and SQLite, right? Is there any reason you need to keep using two different database systems? Would it be possible to just migrate everything to one of the two databases instead of using them both? - Martin On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com wrote: For years now, evolution-data-server has been dragging around its own copy of Berkeley DB (libdb) 4.1.25. As I understand the back story, it was originally added to work around libdb's frequently changing on-disk database format at that time, which would break our local address book databases every time the format changed. The database format hasn't been an issue for at least as long as I've been working on Evolution (since 2006). It's dead weight now. We've been dragging it around basically for Sun's benefit since they can't ship their own libdb for licensing reasons, but the Sun maintainers have agreed to let us drop our copy of libdb upstream and they will patch it back in to their own e-d-s package. I believe most distros are already linking evolution-data-server to a system-wide copy of libdb, especially since Ross Burton pointed out the reduction in memory usage by doing so [1]. Not sure what exact version of Berkely DB to recommend. Any reasonably up-to-date version should be sufficient. Matthew Barnes [1] http://burtonini.com/blog/computers/eds-libdb-2006-07-18-10-40 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 11:23 -0400, Martin Meyer wrote: Evolution uses both Berkeley DB and SQLite, right? Is there any reason you need to keep using two different database systems? Would it be possible to just migrate everything to one of the two databases instead of using them both? I believe there's a desire to move everything over to SQLite, but that code has not been written and we're badly understaffed right now. So unfortunately we'll be on two different databases for a while longer. Matthew Barnes ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 11:13 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote: For years now, evolution-data-server has been dragging around its own copy of Berkeley DB (libdb) 4.1.25. As I understand the back story, it was originally added to work around libdb's frequently changing on-disk database format at that time, which would break our local address book databases every time the format changed. The database format hasn't been an issue for at least as long as I've been working on Evolution (since 2006). It's dead weight now. We've been dragging it around basically for Sun's benefit since they can't ship their own libdb for licensing reasons, but the Sun maintainers have agreed to let us drop our copy of libdb upstream and they will patch it back in to their own e-d-s package. I believe most distros are already linking evolution-data-server to a system-wide copy of libdb, especially since Ross Burton pointed out the reduction in memory usage by doing so [1]. Not sure what exact version of Berkely DB to recommend. Any reasonably up-to-date version should be sufficient. Matthew Barnes [1] http://burtonini.com/blog/computers/eds-libdb-2006-07-18-10-40 At Archlinux, we've been linking it dynamic since this blog post was made. We have a db4.1 package for this, to keep compatibility with evolution binaries that use the shipped binaries. We would be happy to drop this db4.1 package and just depend on the latest version we ship in our distribution, which is 4.8 at this moment. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 19:15 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote: At Archlinux, we've been linking it dynamic since this blog post was made. We have a db4.1 package for this, to keep compatibility with evolution binaries that use the shipped binaries. We would be happy to drop this db4.1 package and just depend on the latest version we ship in our distribution, which is 4.8 at this moment. Debian happily builds e-d-s against whatever the default libdb in the archive is, which is currently 4.8. Ross -- Ross Burton mail: r...@burtonini.com jabber: r...@burtonini.com www: http://burtonini.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)
In Solaris Nevada, (Not OpenSolaris), we are using 4.7.25. I think 4.8 should also work. Jeff On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 11:13 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote: For years now, evolution-data-server has been dragging around its own copy of Berkeley DB (libdb) 4.1.25. As I understand the back story, it was originally added to work around libdb's frequently changing on-disk database format at that time, which would break our local address book databases every time the format changed. The database format hasn't been an issue for at least as long as I've been working on Evolution (since 2006). It's dead weight now. We've been dragging it around basically for Sun's benefit since they can't ship their own libdb for licensing reasons, but the Sun maintainers have agreed to let us drop our copy of libdb upstream and they will patch it back in to their own e-d-s package. I believe most distros are already linking evolution-data-server to a system-wide copy of libdb, especially since Ross Burton pointed out the reduction in memory usage by doing so [1]. Not sure what exact version of Berkely DB to recommend. Any reasonably up-to-date version should be sufficient. Matthew Barnes [1] http://burtonini.com/blog/computers/eds-libdb-2006-07-18-10-40 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
