>>>>> "SM" == Skip Montanaro <skip@pobox.com> writes:
Greg> should we keep the existing bsddb around as oldbsddb for
Greg> users in that situation?
Martin> I don't think so; users could always extract the module
Martin> from older distributions if they want to.
SM> I would prefer the old version be moved to lib-old (or
SM> Modules-old?). For people still running DB 2.x it shouldn't
SM> be a major headache to retrieve.
Modules/old/ probably. We wouldn't do anything with that directory
except use it as a placeholder for old extension source, right?
Do we care about preserving the cvs history for the current
bsddbmodule.c? If so, we'll have to ask SF to do a cvs dance for us.
It may not be worth it.
-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