On 25/10/10 11:40, Tim Bunce wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 06:59:57PM +0100, Martin J. Evans wrote: >> I've released a DBD::ODBC requiring Perl 5.8 but included the use of >> my_snprintf (from ppport.h) which unfortunately was not defined >> until 5.9.4. Fair enough, my fault but I have no way of fixing it >> (other than reversing my_snprintf back to sprintf) because of the >> way DBI includes dbipport.h (alias ppport.h). >> >> In DBI, dbipport.h is a renamed ppport.h generated by Devel::PPPort >> and is included from DBIXS.h which all DBDs include - presumably the >> idea was to save DBDs from having to keep up to date with ppport.h. >> In DBI 1.609, dbipport.h was updated (by H Merijn Brand I think) to >> the latest Devel::PPPort 3.19 version but I'm not convinced >> dbipport.h is always kept in sync with ppport.h. However, because >> DBIXS.h includes dbipport.h as #include "dbipport.h" I cannot >> override DBI's copy with a newer version in DBD::ODBC and hence I >> cannot fix my my_snprintf issue the way I'd like which is to include >> with DBD::ODBC a newer ppport.h as dbipport.h. >> >> In the case reported to me the user has an old DBI pre 1.609 which >> has a massively out of date ppport.h and he cannot upgrade DBI but >> he cannot install the latest DBD::ODBC. If that #include >> "dbipport.h" was changed to #include <dbipport.h> I could at least >> release a DBD::ODBC including the latest ppport.h as dbipport.h and >> the problem is fixed. I know this won't help today but if this had >> been done in the past I would at least have had the option to fix it >> locally in DBD::ODBC today. >> >> As a result, I'd like to change that include in DBIXS.h to add this >> flexibility in the future. >> >> Any objections? > > None.
Done, thanks. I didn't add a change entry. Sometimes I'm unsure whether to or not. In DBD::ODBC I pretty much log everything but I'm not sure of your policy in DBI. > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:53:20PM +0100, Martin J. Evans wrote: >> >> Given I've had no response to this (other than Tux on #dbi who did >> not object) I will make the suggested change in the next few days (I >> don't think it hurts but it allows DBDs to override the dbipport.h >> with a newer version). However, since DBD::ODBC is broken with older >> DBIs I'm going to make the next DBD::ODBC release dependent on DBI >> 1.609. > > Okay. Also done in subversion but not released yet. >> The next release of DBD::ODBC (1.26_1 only in subversion soon but >> not as yet) has over 200 code block changes to the codebase mostly >> to a) complete the move to ODBC 3.0 and require an ODBC Driver >> Manager and b) refactor the code to remove redundant code. >> >> My next step is to investigate tracing as I'm having a lot of >> problems with people settting the trace level to less than 15 or >> setting a trace level for connections which is problematic. > > Please explain (in a new thread). Will do when I get a proper chance to research it fully. >> The next development release of DBD::ODBC should be treated with >> caution as it contains a huge number of codebase changes. I hope to >> have this released in the next week. > > Thanks Martin. > > Tim. Martin -- Martin J. Evans Easysoft Limited http://www.easysoft.com
