Quanah Gibson-Mount writes:
[About name clashes with MDB Tools]
> The only place I can think this could cause an issue would be Debian (and
> then Ubuntu). They load all library symbols into a shared address space
> used by every user, including root. This has caused me endless nightmare
> in
--On Saturday, December 01, 2012 4:29 PM -0800 Howard Chu
wrote:
I'm not too keen on renaming all of the actual library symbols, since
there are already a couple of other projects that have adopted mdb in its
earlier form. But certainly, if we're going to do so, we need to do it
before it gets
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:05 PM +0100 Hallvard Breien Furuseth
wrote:
Howard Chu writes:
This is basically a continuation of this thread
http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/20/msg00063.html
I think liblmdb for the name of the library file is f
> Gavin Henry wrote:
>>
>> What about just memorydb or memdb?
>
>
> http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/20/msg00064.html
Apologies.
--
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.
T +44 (0) 1224 279484
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 824887
E ghe...@suretec.co.uk
Open Sourc
--On Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:05 PM +0100 Hallvard Breien Furuseth
wrote:
Howard Chu writes:
This is basically a continuation of this thread
http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/20/msg00063.html
I think liblmdb for the name of the library file is fine. Do we need to
change a
Gavin Henry wrote:
What about just memorydb or memdb?
http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/20/msg00064.html
--
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.
T +44 (0) 1224 279484
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 824887
E ghe...@suretec.co.uk
Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).
What about just memorydb or memdb?
--
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.
T +44 (0) 1224 279484
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 824887
E ghe...@suretec.co.uk
Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).
http://www.suretecsystems.com/
Suretec Systems is a limited company registered in Scotl
Howard Chu writes:
> This is basically a continuation of this thread
> http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/20/msg00063.html
>
> I think liblmdb for the name of the library file is fine. Do we need to
> change any other instances of "mdb" as well, or can we just let them slide?
Need,
On Nov 30, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Friday, November 30, 2012 2:04 PM -0800 Kurt Zeilenga
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Quanah Gibson-Mount
>> wrote:
>>
>>> However, "mdb.h" seems to be common:
>>
>> I suggest it be installed so it included as .
--On Friday, November 30, 2012 2:04 PM -0800 Kurt Zeilenga
wrote:
On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Quanah Gibson-Mount
wrote:
However, "mdb.h" seems to be common:
I suggest it be installed so it included as .
Hm, that would imply MDB is tied to OpenLDAP, to me. Which, as there are a
gro
On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> However, "mdb.h" seems to be common:
I suggest it be installed so it included as .
-- Kurt
--On Friday, November 30, 2012 7:35 AM -0800 Howard Chu
wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
Unfortunately, libmdb already exists in modern linux systems as part of
the mdb-tools package. This would be a problematic conflict for getting
MDB packaged in general. As a proposal, how about liblmdb
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
Unfortunately, libmdb already exists in modern linux systems as part of the
mdb-tools package. This would be a problematic conflict for getting MDB
packaged in general. As a proposal, how about liblmdb as the new name? I
haven't been able to find any instances of that
13 matches
Mail list logo
