Search the list archives. You'll find two things: 1) The Ximian folks use a particular version of db3 for standards compliance. If everyone who uses evolution is using the exact same version of db3, then addressbooks and the like will always work across platforms and whatnot.
2) The support for that particular version is statically compiled in. Once you have rebuilt evolution against it, you can safely remove the 3.1.7 installation. There may be other reasons but the second one alone is why you didn't get a response when you posted to Bugzilla. That's what I recall anyway. If I'm wrong, may the Ximian folks correct me. Brian On Wed, 2002-01-16 at 19:20, Sergey V. Udaltsov wrote: > Hi all > > 1.0.1 is more stable than 1.0 - thanks to all Ximian people. But it > still does require db3-3.1.7. Moreover, with simple hacking I was able > to make Evo 1.0 work witn 3.2.9 (from RH7.2) but Evo 1.0.1 has problems > reading the db:( I know it is a kind of bad hack but could please anyone > explain me the policy of Ximian here? Why do they use the db format > supported by one particular (old!) version of one dbms? Is there a > chance to have something more flexible (open, standard, supported) in a > future? Some time ago I posted the bug in the bugzilla, but got no > positive response from Ximian people:( Do they really think it is good > to have 2 versions of db3 on a machine? Any comments would be > appreciated. > > Cheers, > > Sergey V. Udaltsov > > _______________________________________________ > evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution -- Brian _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
