> One possibility to handle the "conflict" might be making it an argument to
> --enable-bdb (eg --enable-bdb=readonly), which then skips the other variants.
> In that case it could technically be called "bdb" and avoid all the
> "configured to blabla, using blabla" warnings from backend detection.
I think this makes sense. If @mlschroe does this, then I'm happy to approve
this too.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/980#issuecomment-570711558
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
