On  9 Jul, Keith Bostic wrote:

>>> 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.

Well, but there are  programming bugs in it, as was  pointed out in this
thread. Unless FreeBSD  wants to maintain its own db,  we need to select
someone else's.  DB3 --  despite its  technical merits  -- does  not fit
because  of restrictive  licensing.  gdbm's license  is  not ideal,  but
acceptable -- so I'm inquiring about its technical merits...

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.

> This  discussion  is only  regarding  the  possibility of  making  the
> Berkeley DB 3.X  functionality available to the  FreeBSD community and
> its customers.

Well, it  started out discussing  the next  release of nvi  and promptly
concluded, that it would require upgrading  dbm. So, now the issue is --
which db to pick: the currently used (buggy), the DB3 (too restrictive a
license, IMO), gdbm, or something else (Net or OpenBSD's?).


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

Reply via email to