On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:45:56AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:27:01PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:18:27AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:19:04AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > Hello, ... > > > > > > > > I have a package who used to use /usr/include/db1/ndbm.h to build ndbm > > > > support, which worked fine with libc6 versions prior to 2.3.1. > > > > > > > > Now, this file seem to have vanished from the latest libc6. Is that an > > > > intentional thing, and if yes, what are the new way of using dbm > > > > support ? > > > > > > > > I currently hacked my package so it use the gdbm-ndbm.h from > > > > libgdbmg1-dev, which seems to work, and am about to send a patch > > > > upstream about this, but would want to know what exactly is going on, so > > > > i can provide a cleaner patch that may also be working in the future. > > > > > > You can also use the dbm interfaces in all the libdb packages (including > > > the latest db4.0). They are all binary compatible on-disk formats. > > > > Well, my problem is that the package does not enable the support at > > compile time when it does not detect a ndbm.h. So i would have to build > > depend on a package providing an ndbm.h (currently it looks at > > /usr/include, /usr/include/db1 and /usr/include/gdbm) but is not happy > > for a gdbm-ndbm.h. > > No, you have to have a correct configure check. Lots of programs use dbm > interfaces, and look in ndbm.h, gdbm.h anbd db.h to do it.
Ok, will do it, it was for doing this that i looked for info. > > > db1 support in glibc 2.2 was hacked in. It was never there upstream. For > > > glibc 2.3, we dropped the hack. The db1-compat package provides binary > > > > Ok, but a changelog entry would have been handy. > > Change log says we dropped db1 support. The changelog is not a place to > put workarounds. Ok, i did a grep for dbm, so i did not found it, sorry. > > Mmm, it provides a /usr/include/db.h though, and not a /usr/include/ndbm.h, > > are those the same things ? > > Why not look in the header and see? Why not read the db4.0 docs and see > what it says about dbm? Sorry, i will look at it. Friendly, Sven Luther
