Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:22:45AM +0100, "C. Bergstr?m" wrote: >> So basically what I'm reading in this is when I refactor the build >> system I may as well evaluate updating to SQLite3. One of the first >> comments seemed to imply that with SQLite3 there would be an increase in >> binary size or some other disadvantage. > > Binary size for configd is not likely to be a problem. Using SQLite3 > would be a very good thing indeed. I figure the SMF team will cringe at > the idea of linking with a shared SQLite3; we'll see!
I don't inherently cringe. (Others might, but they can speak for themselves.) It's the fact that sqlite3 has an entirely different library API, plus the extensive retesting that would be required that's kept us from prioritizing the work since there would be no administratively visible benefit from the switch. But, I have no reason to discourage someone from exploring it. (SMF's not the only consumer of sqlite2 in ON though, I thought. Removing SMF's use wouldn't change the other consumers' needs.) liane
