On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 17:55 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 10:58 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> > Ross,
> >
> > I had a chat with JP and He pointed me to a old README.
> >
> > ===
> > The issue was around no backwards compatability, from the old README:
>
> In my experien
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 10:58 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> Ross,
>
> I had a chat with JP and He pointed me to a old README.
>
> ===
> The issue was around no backwards compatability, from the old README:
In my experience recently Berkeley DB has been a lot more forgiving
recently. Note tha
Ross,
I had a chat with JP and He pointed me to a old README.
===
The issue was around no backwards compatability, from the old README:
- Berkeley's libdb - 3.1.17
db3 is available from http://www.sleepycat.com. Make sure to get
3.1.17, it isn't the latest version.
--- IMPORTANT W
Ross,
IIRC, it was done because, every libdb update broke Evolution or libdb
wasn't so stable release over release. Also OpenSUSE uses statically
linked libdb. But most of the hackers I know, dynamically link libdb.
I'm favor of the change. But lemme ping some old evolution hackers who
were part o
Hi,
I think that we should remove the fork of Berkeley DB from the Evolution
Data Server source. Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo and Fedora all use
--with-libdb to dynamically link to a system library, so it is known to
work.
This would involve removing libdb from svn, and always dynamically
linking to l
