[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140906111506.GA2563@openwall.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 15:15:06 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: new RPM and old database format
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 09:35:02PM +0400, (GalaxyMaster) wrote:
> The new RPM package is currently built with the internal copy of BDB
> 5.3.28. This version of BDB uses V9 database format as native. Our
> previous RPM was using BDB4 which supported V8 database format.
>
> The new RPM can work with V8 databases, but may occasionally issue
> warnings (e.g. when it wants to create a missing index). These warnings
> are harmless, I believe.
>
> Please avoid running 'rpmdb --rebuilddb' if you want to keep V8
> database. It's unclear at this stage whether we are going to keep BDB5
> or maybe we decide to use our system-wide BDB for RPM.
>
> The reason I went for BDB5 is because Fedora is using it and the minimum
> version of BDB4 RPM 4.11+ supports is 4.5, while Owl provides 4.3.
> However, I'm tending to switch to BDB4 for our RPM since there are
> almost no benefits of using BDB5 here, yet it means that we need to keep
> another copy of BDB in the source tree,
If BDB5 comes in the new RPM version's source tarball, then perhaps
we'll just happen to have it in the tree anyway, unless we repackage
that tarball?
> but what's more important is that we will need to fix issues there.
>
> Any comments on the issue? Do you have a preference in relation to the
> database version? :)
I'd like to hear Dmitry's comments, please.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
