On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 12:11:35AM -0700, Bill Moseley wrote: >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.
No, it's certainly not Debian specific. *Any* program which links with a new major version of Berkeley DB has the same problems--any databases created with an earlier version of the library must be manually upgraded. The issue with DB_File is merely that since it provides a generic mechanism for creating databases it is not possible to issue a clear instruction like "run db_upgrade on ~/.X.db" as application X might. >Is it just upgrading to BerkeleyDB 4 that requires rebuilding the db >files? The requirement for manually upgrading databases has occurred for every major revision since 1.85 as I recall. --bod -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
