Tom Russo wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 06:55:20PM -0800, we recorded a bogon-computron collision of
the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> flavor, containing:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Tom Russo wrote:
[probing for bdb]
I'll give on the 5.x stuff. You're right.
As far as the 4.6 and later versions, I'm torn between adding them
in as new versions come out, or add them all now and tweak code
later if things don't work.
I think I'd rather leave them in and
fix up configure.ac/acinclude.m4 to do a proper search for them so
the special config paths aren't required in most cases.
Well, I guess there's room for differing opinions on that one.
If we only probe for those that exist now and are known to work, the way that
new versions will show up is that someone will remark that they have BDB
installed, and it's not detected.
If we do as you suggest, the way that incompatible new versions will show
up is as link or compile failures, which will undoubtedly be more frustrating
to folks less able to hunt down the cause themselves.
I think I prefer the "add as needed" to the "expose unhappy
incompatibilities" approach. But I think that the 4.x API is more likely
to be stable enough for now that it probably is six of one and half-a-dozen
of the other. Looking more carefully at the map_cache code, the API change
that was incompatible in early versions of 4.x was between 4.0 and 4.1, not
between 4.1 and 4.2. So it's been pretty stable for four or five minor
versions, and it's probably OK to assume it'll stay stable until 5.x, at
which time it'll probably be completely unstable again.
Wouldn't it be better for xastir to report "incomputable version" and
then recommend the Wiki site for a fix? Might be one way to do it.
Z
_______________________________________________
Xastir mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir
