> Okay, after a little investigation (about 30 seconds staring at
> setup.py), I see where the problem with dbm is. Setup.py has this
> code to deal with dbm:
>
> # The standard Unix dbm module:
> if platform not in ['cygwin']:
> if (self.compiler.find_library_file(lib_dirs, 'ndbm')):
> exts.append( Extension('dbm', ['dbmmodule.c'],
> libraries = ['ndbm'] ) )
> elif self.compiler.find_library_file(lib_dirs, 'db1'):
> exts.append( Extension('dbm', ['dbmmodule.c'],
> libraries = ['db1'] ) )
> else:
> exts.append( Extension('dbm', ['dbmmodule.c']) )
>
> That second branch is just plain wrong. (I realize Neil added it in
> response to a bug report.) While it's true that Berkeley DB does
> (or did) provide a dbm API, the underlying file is a db1 hash file,
> which we all should realize by now is horribly broken, and if you've
> got a workable bsddb there's no sense in trying to trick programmers
> into thinking they also have real dbm files. I suggest we discard
> the elif branch. Any argument?
Sounds reasonable to me, but I'm no expert in this area. (I still
have a pending bug report on why whichdb gets confused sometimes.)
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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