> Technically gdbm is fine. I doubt  you'll be able to displace Berkeley
> DB,  though;  gdbm is  less  buggy,  but  doesn't  offer many  of  the
> features, nor does it offer equivalent performance.
>> I'd welcome your  comments in particular, since you are  an expert in
>> the field and there is not going to be a conflict of interest.
> Actually, I'm pretty  biased. :-) I'd like to see  Berkeley DB 1.85 go
> away for  a lot  of reasons --  I don't much  care what  it's replaced
> with.

Well, can you  recommend some other alternative?  You mentioned db-tests
you created, etc.  Did you evaluate any other dbm  libraries useable for
us from the licensing perspective?
> Nvi won't require upgrading the library's dbm support. Berkeley DB 3.X
> supports inclusion  of multiple DB  versions in a  single application.
> Nvi's  simple  solution  is  to  include  a copy  of  DB  in  the  nvi
> distribution.

Well, may be  that's how the nvi application will  be distributed, but I
doubt, that's how  the nvi part of  the FreeBSD will be  built... In all
probability, the new  nvi will just get hacked to  work with dbm-1.85 or
gdbm. Although  it is possible, that  the relevant parts of  DB3 will be
linked staticly into it (kind of like DB3 Lite), it would be rather ugly



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to