Re: db(3) removal and lastlogx

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 02:19:27PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
 > > > > I missed the start of this thread and have a stupid question:
 > > > > why are we
 > > > > trying to get rid of db(3) in libc?
 > > > 
 > > > I wonder exactly the same thing:
 > >
 > >Because the db 1.85 we have in libc is severely outdated
 > 
 > Yes
 > 
 > >and has a bunch of known and basically unfixable bugs,
 > 
 > Like which ones? Are there PR's? TO my knowledge we have the only db1.85
 > that works. I don't like db much, I am just curious..

Well, the major problem is that the old suggested way of handling
multiple writers doesn't quite work and can't really be made to work.

There's one I think have on file somewhere (although there doesn't
appear to be a PR) and according to internal sources at Sleepycat a
long time ago there's a small but nonzero number of problems with 1.85
that can't be fixed without changing the file format... even if we
wanted to get into that, it's not really a good idea.

 > >and we can't move to db4 or db5 because of licensing.
 > 
 > Yes.

Well, we could; just not in libc.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost