On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 14:07:48 -0500 (EST)
Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> wrote:

> 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,
> however.

Indeed.

> 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.

Yes, that sounds good, but let it up to the user's choice (and default to
something known).  pkgsrc should enforce consistent packages across systems
whenever possible (I know you are aware of this ;).  I'm just putting
emphasis on this because the current situation is, IMHO, not acceptable.
Packages are beeing built against the current _installed_ version of db...
resulting in different dependencies depending on the order in which you
install your software.

Cheers

-- 
Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv@menta.net>
http://www.livejournal.com/users/jmmv/
The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/