Subject: Re: USE_DB185 and BDB_ACCEPTED
To: None <>
From: grant beattie <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 05/30/2004 21:07:00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 05:29:46AM +0000, Johnny C. Lam wrote:

> > may I ask why db4, db3 and db2 are used in that order of preference?
> >=20
> > db4 and db3 are quite bloated, and I would have expected db2 to be the
> > more obvious choice for a default.
> Well, "bloat" is in the eye of the beholder, and personally, I think
> if you have perl installed on your system, then objecting to db4 vs.
> db2 is pretty insignificant.  Seriously though, db4 can satisfy almost
> all db[123] dependencies via the db_compat interface, and avoids having
> to install db4 later on when some package like apr needs it.  For this
> reason, "db4 db3 db2" seemed like a reasonable ordering.
> I'm not wedded to this, so if you'd like to change this and there are
> no serious objections, please feel free.

There's a good reason to default to db2 I just stumbled across.. it
doesn't need a C++ compiler.

if no db is currently installed then db4 is chosen by default, which
needs a C++ compiler. on some systems, needing a C++ compiler would
mean building lang/gcc{,3} and anything which uses the (now default,
because it's installed) db4 pkg has a runtime dependency on gcc because
of libgcc_s/libstdc++.

some platforms also have difficulty with C++ compilers (eg. IRIX 5.3,
Interix maybe?) and C compilers are everywhere.

I think the packages which need db3 or db4 should be marked so using
BDB_ACCEPTED (which is probably already done) and the default be
changed to db2 which doesn't need a C++ compiler.


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (NetBSD)