On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 19:32, "Martin v. L=F6wis" wrote: > [building bsddb185] > > I suppose that's an alternative, however, it is complicated by a coup= le > > issues: > >=20 > > * The bsddb185 module would have to be built as bsddb (not a big = deal in > > and of itself). >=20 > Why is that? I propose to build the bsddb185 module as bsddb185. It doe= s=20 > not support being built as bsddb[module]. >=20 > > * The current bsddb package directory would have to be renamed or= not > > installed to avoid name clashes. >=20 > I suggest no such thing, and I agree that this would not be desirable. I totally agree with Martin. Make bsddb185 explicit and do not masquerade it as bsddb by default. -Barry
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