>> I found whats wrong, but not sure who is wrong: exim or FreeBSD. >> Exim use "first? DB_FIRST : DB_NEXT" in db v2, v3, but in v1 it use >> "R_FIRST : 0", but R_FIRST is not 0: >> >> /usr/include/db.h:#define R_FIRST 3 /* seq */ >> >> FreeBSD r190495 introduced this loop, but only if used incorrectly. >> So it looks like both should be fixed. >> Patch was obtained from OpenBSD (and/or NetBSD) so I think same problem here. > > Good diagnosis, thanks. > > Exim should be using R_NEXT, but the previous code has worked for > everyone until FreeBSD 8, so I suspect a value change from the defaults > (which would be an ABI change too). > > > This patch fix problem for me: > > I filed a bug with a patch which is less likely to run into issues on > obscure platforms where I've no idea what flags do or do not exist, when > Exim has apparently worked fine with the old value before. > > http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=871
as far as i can see from webbing, this bug is still alive and well in freebsd and exim_tidydb, correct? randy -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
