>> Just to be clear -- they could link against it using the same,
>> standard functionality that FreeBSD uses. They couldn't link against
>> it and use all the additional features/functionality.
> So we'll have to document, which functions it is Ok to call and which
> arguments/flags can and can not be passed to them. Brrrgh...
As a system distributor in a previous life, "Brrrgh" indeed. :-)
The way we've done this for previous systems is not try and
document how it can be called, but only permit use *through*
the system's library, that is, use it via getpwent(), the
libc network functions and so on.
>> My guess is that your answer remains the same -- and, that's cool, I'm
>> used to losing this argument, I do so about twice a year. :-) Just
>> wanted to be clear.
> Well, can someone comment on the useability of gdbm? I know, it has dbm
> and ndbm compatibility "mode" and a less restrictive license. Should we
> switch over to it?
This isn't necessary. The *current* FreeBSD libc Berkeley DB sources
are completely safe -- they're under a UC Regents copyright notice.
This discussion is only regarding the possibility of making the Berkeley
DB 3.X functionality available to the FreeBSD community and its customers.
Sleepycat Software Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
118 Tower Rd. +1-781-259-3139
Lincoln, MA 01773 http://www.sleepycat.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message