Thanks, guys, for your insights wrt the bsddb module which appears to be
deprecated, possibly in part due to the pitfalls you described. I guess one
way forward to ameliorate API ugliness was to abstract it behind a separate
python package (http://pypi.python.org/pypi/bsddb3/4.8.0). Perhaps, under
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009, Armin B. Resch wrote:
Thanks, guys, for your insights wrt the bsddb module which appears to be
deprecated, possibly in part due to the pitfalls you described. I guess one
way forward to ameliorate API ugliness was to abstract it behind a separate
python package
On Oct 3, 2009, at 5:13 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009, Armin B. Resch wrote:
Thanks, guys, for your insights wrt the bsddb module which appears
to be
deprecated, possibly in part due to the pitfalls you described. I
guess one
way forward to ameliorate API ugliness
Hi Ralf,
Thanks for that. Option 6 is not unlike the first one, then. Your suggestion
is interesting, though. I do use the -r option against a local mirror, but
would have dealt with situations like that by simply adding the offending
package to an exclusion list on the build command (after
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009, Armin B. Resch wrote:
Thanks, guys, for your insights wrt the bsddb module which appears to be
deprecated, possibly in part due to the pitfalls you described. I guess one
way forward to ameliorate API ugliness was to
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009, Armin B. Resch wrote:
Thanks for that. Option 6 is not unlike the first one, then. Your suggestion
is interesting, though. I do use the -r option against a local mirror, but
would have dealt with situations like that by simply adding the offending
package to an exclusion
