Subject: Re: problems with choosing a Berkeley DB
To: Jeremy C. Reed <email@example.com>
From: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/05/2005 14:07:48
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that we pick a DB and stay with it.
> Also, maybe some packages maybe should use the lightest weight db.
> One idea would be to phase out db3 (except for rare package that requires
> it). Use db2 for everything needing a light-weight db (if that is true
> that db2 is quicker and/or smaller). And then use db4 for rest.
The policy of pkgsrc seems to be slanted toward consistency, so perhaps db4
should be the default globally, nuking db2/db3, and bumping PKGREVISIONs on
db4's soname bump. I can't speak for db2 vs. db4 resource consumption,
One thing I definitely don't want to see disappear is db1 support. Though
db4 could be the default, and the trigger for bumping PKGREVISIONs, there is
still a pretty sizable chunk of software that is perfectly happy with
db1.8x. So BDB_DEFAULT should still be settable by the user to "db1" to
make use of db1 in packages that support it.
-- Todd Vierling <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>