On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 04:55:25PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote: > On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 08:21:10PM -0700, Bill Moseley wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:12:52PM -0700, Bill Moseley wrote: > > > >> For some reason DB_File is not working like I expect, so I'm wondering > >> what changed. I'm hoping I'm missing something obvious, which is often the > >> case... > > > >For the archive: > > > > # apt-get install libdb4.0-util > > $ db4.0_upgrade *.db > > > >That's a nasty upgrade. > > It certainly is. Although I'm not entirely sure how better to address > this than the changelog entry: > > perl (5.8.0-7) unstable; urgency=low > > [...] > * NOTE: DB_File now uses libdb4.0 (previously libdb2). Any DB_File > databases created with earlier perl packages will need to be > upgraded before being used with the current module with the > db4.0_upgrade program (in the libdb4.0-util package, with HTML docs > in db4.0-doc).
I'm not that clear on the problem. But it's not debian specific, right? I mean google finds a bunch of posts about DB_File and Perl 5.8.0, although perhaps those were different issues. Is it just upgrading to BerkeleyDB 4 that requires rebuilding the db files? > I'm loathe to add a debconf note, as there appear to be far too many of > these already and moreover it presumes that the user is aware that > they're using DB_File at all (think: packages which use DB_File, such > as spamassasin). No kidding. I've got a client on a ISP that uses Debian. I was wondering about the users of DB_File at the ISP when the ISP upgrades perl and BerkeleyDB. -- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
