Your message dated Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:20:07 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line sqlite thread support bugreport
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libsqlite3-0
Version: 3.2.5-1
[debian-devel CCed because I'm asking for advice at the end.]
Until sqlite 3.2.2, a database handle could be opened in one thread
and used in another. In 3.2.5 this has been disabled, and upstream
recommends to open a db handle for each handle; which has generated a
bit of traffic in the mailing list:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.sqlite.general/13957
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.sqlite.general/14007
The reason for this change is that it didn't properly work on some
Linux systems. See these messages from the sqlite author:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.sqlite.general/13961
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.sqlite.general/14015
My amarok package uses this feature (sharing db handles accross
threads), and with the recent upload of sqlite3, its sqlite-based
collection support no longer works (#326562, #312386). What is worse,
when talking with upstream about it, they tell me that hey have no
plans on changing their source code -- as they ship an internal copy
of sqlite, they'll re-enable the feature there instead.
If sqlite upstream fails to provide a solution for this, I fear I will
have to use the internal copy of sqlite that amarok provides (*).
Unless the solution is provided by the Debian package instead; but
this would be diverging from upstream, and I don't think it's a really
good idea unless we can know for sure we don't belong to the "does
sometimes not work" category outlined by D. Richard Hipp. Anybody has
an opinion on this?
(*) I'd be very unhappy with this, but I can't go on with "install
libsqlite3-0 3.2.2-3 and put it on hold" forever.
Also, I have no idea what's the case for Debian: "On some versions of
Linux, a thread is not able to override locks created by a different
thread in the same process." Does this depend on the kernel, on libc,
or on something else?
Thanks,
--
Adeodato Simó
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there
is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.
-- J.K. Galbraith
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Asked for existance, no reply, thought no longer exists. Closing this
bug now.
--- End Message ---
