On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 05:23:49AM -0700, Neil Schemenauer wrote: > Thomas Wouters wrote: > > In other words: it's a mess. > It sure is. You don't want to change the DB implementation used if it > worked in 2.1. I believe that different DBs use different storage > formats. People would not be happy if they upgraded to a point release > and all their DBs broke (i.e. with 2.1 dbm was actually gdbm but with > 2.1.1 it is db1). I didn't touch the autoconf code that finds the include file, nor the #ifdef mess in dbmmodule.c that decides which to use, so it could only lead to unrunnable/uncompilable code, not to a new .db silently being used. But I agree that this is not a suitable fix for 2.1.1, I just wish we could fix it better :) -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4