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