Re: db(3) removal and lastlogx

[Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost>]

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:28:38PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <20120721175645.GM20677%nef.pbox.org@localhost>,
> Alistair Crooks  <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost> wrote:
> >
> >Well, in lieu of any supporting arguments for the migration of db to cdb
> >format, let's revert them all.
> 
> Aside the compatibility issues (which I believe are mostly fine), the cdb
> changes for the read-only databases is a strict improvement.

Creates or reads, or both?

Recovery was another issue which was flagged under db1 as being
problematic - how is it done for cdb?  How is it superior?  How
does this relate to a readonly db? For readwrite dbs like the passwd
ones?

Transactions - how do they relate to a readonly database? I've seen
that used as justification too.

And the compat issues - since we'll have to keep the db1 code in libc
- they're kinda difficult, especially if we have any statically-linked
programs which use termcap/terminfo, or the user databases, or
services, etc.

> >Especially in view of the fact that marking terminfo.db 'obsolete' has
> >broken backwards compatibility for standalone-tcsh, to name but one.
> 
> That was not joerg's fault, or related to cdb. This was part of the termcap
> /terminfo migration.

Thanks, yeah, I saw PR 46731 after I wrote the previous. 

Regards,
Alistair