Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)

2009-10-09 Thread Frederic Peters
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

Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)

2009-10-09 Thread Matthew Barnes
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 minim

Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)

2009-10-06 Thread Vincent Untz
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

Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)

2009-09-29 Thread Jeff Cai
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

Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)

2009-09-29 Thread Ross Burton
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 j

Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)

2009-09-29 Thread Jan de Groot
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 t

Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)

2009-09-29 Thread Matthew Barnes
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 bel

Re: External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)

2009-09-29 Thread Martin Meyer
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 wrote: >

External Dependency Proposal: Berkeley DB (libdb)

2009-09-29 Thread Matthew Barnes
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 ever