Re: Berkeley DB 4.1

2013-09-13 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 13.09.2013 21:11, schrieb olli hauer: > On 2013-09-12 12:57, Ivan Voras wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'd like to start a discussion on changing the default BDB port from 4.1 >> to something more recent. >> >> bdb version 4.1 was last released in 2002: >> README: Sleepycat Software: Berkeley DB 4.1.25:

Re: Berkeley DB 4.1

2013-09-13 Thread Michael Grimm
On 13.09.2013, at 21:56, Pietro Cerutti wrote: > On 13-set-2013, at 21:01, Michael Grimm wrote: >> On 12.09.2013, at 13:34, Ivan Voras wrote: >>> Yes, I've had WITH_BDB_VER?=48 in my standard /etc/make.conf >> >> Please excuse my ignorance, but I couldn't find the meaning of >> that '?'. Does

Re: Berkeley DB 4.1

2013-09-13 Thread Pietro Cerutti
On 13-set-2013, at 21:01, Michael Grimm wrote: > On 12.09.2013, at 13:34, Ivan Voras wrote: > >> Yes, I've had WITH_BDB_VER?=48 in my standard /etc/make.conf > > Please excuse my ignorance, but I couldn't find the meaning of > that '?'. Does that stand for "*at least* version db48"? Or? Set

Re: Berkeley DB 4.1

2013-09-13 Thread olli hauer
On 2013-09-12 12:57, Ivan Voras wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to start a discussion on changing the default BDB port from 4.1 > to something more recent. > > bdb version 4.1 was last released in 2002: > README: Sleepycat Software: Berkeley DB 4.1.25: (December 19, 2002) > > There are some ports w

Re: Berkeley DB 4.1

2013-09-13 Thread Michael Grimm
On 12.09.2013, at 13:34, Ivan Voras wrote: > Yes, I've had WITH_BDB_VER?=48 in my standard /etc/make.conf Please excuse my ignorance, but I couldn't find the meaning of that '?'. Does that stand for "*at least* version db48"? Or? Thanks in advance, Michael

Re: Berkeley DB 4.1

2013-09-12 Thread Volodymyr Kostyrko
12.09.2013 13:57, Ivan Voras wrote: Hello, I'd like to start a discussion on changing the default BDB port from 4.1 to something more recent. bdb version 4.1 was last released in 2002: README: Sleepycat Software: Berkeley DB 4.1.25: (December 19, 2002) There are some ports which have an unexpe

Re: Berkeley DB 4.1

2013-09-12 Thread Ivan Voras
On 12/09/2013 13:09, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:57:06PM +0200 I heard the voice of > Ivan Voras, and lo! it spake thus: >> >> And while the argument seems valid, it also doesn't have an estimate >> of which / how many ports will break with a more recent bdb. > > FWIW, I'

Re: Berkeley DB 4.1

2013-09-12 Thread John Marino
On 9/12/2013 13:09, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:57:06PM +0200 I heard the voice of > Ivan Voras, and lo! it spake thus: >> >> And while the argument seems valid, it also doesn't have an estimate >> of which / how many ports will break with a more recent bdb. > > FWIW, I'v

Re: Berkeley DB 4.1

2013-09-12 Thread Matthew D. Fuller
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:57:06PM +0200 I heard the voice of Ivan Voras, and lo! it spake thus: > > And while the argument seems valid, it also doesn't have an estimate > of which / how many ports will break with a more recent bdb. FWIW, I've manually pushed all the systems I've managed to highe

Berkeley DB 4.1

2013-09-12 Thread Ivan Voras
Hello, I'd like to start a discussion on changing the default BDB port from 4.1 to something more recent. bdb version 4.1 was last released in 2002: README: Sleepycat Software: Berkeley DB 4.1.25: (December 19, 2002) There are some ports which have an unexpected dependacy on bdb via APR (apache2