httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <dgau...@arctic.org>
Subject Re: [patch] Glibc 2.1 / DB 2.0 support
Date Sun, 13 Sep 1998 02:59:21 GMT
Ok sorry.  I just don't want to have anything to do with it :)

Dean

On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Dan Jacobowitz wrote:
> > 
> > > That's my point exactly.  The __GLIBC_MINOR__ + __GLIBC__ >= 3 will
> > > fail for Redhat 5.1 - which is glibc 2.0 based.  Only in glibc 2.1 will
> > > it succeed, and in glibc 2.1, db.h is for db version 2 (libdb2 on most
> > > current systems that have it).  The two are not binary compatible.
> > 
> > !@#$% fucking glibc developers.  Why the hell can't they maintain any
> > shred of compatibility? 
> > 
> > I don't want to have anything to do with this.  It's stupid.  I'm tired of
> > putting in fucking kludges for every new version of glibc.  None of the
> > commercial vendors are this bad, and they can be pretty capricious at
> > times.
> > 
> > If db2.0 is a completely brand new, non-backwards compatible db library
> > then it shouldn't be linked with -ldb and shouldn't be #include "db.h". 
> 
> db2 with completely incompatible interfaces using the same -l and header
> files has been around for a long time.  Most people just use the db_185.h
> or whatever it is and install it as db.h, and the problem goes away.
> 
> So they didn't invent the dumbness, just decided to listen to the people
> who did.  I would guess that is Bostic, sigh.
> 
> The "proper" solution is to add a db2 auth module, then have it detect if
> -ldb and db.h support the "old" db or the "new" db.  Of course, even if
> -ldb is db2, you may still have to use the 1.85 api on most systems.
> 
> db1.85 and db2 files aren't compatible, but files created using the 1.85
> compat interface to db2 are compatible with db2 files.
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message