Skip Montanaro wrote:
> mal> Perhaps you ought to have a look at mx.BeeBase ? It's portable and
> mal> fast, has locks and transactions. (And it builds on all platforms
> mal> where egenix-mx-base builds.)
>
> Perhaps, but that doesn't solve existing problems with building bsddb and
> the various dbm-compatibility modes available.
True, just thought I'd drop in an idea how to get around all
the dbm problems.
> The bsddb build problem is essentially that some (many? most? all?) Linux
> distributions ship with multiple versions of the Berkeley DB library now.
> To make matters worse, they separate the shared libraries (in base rpms)
> from the include files (in -devel rpms). On my Mandrake system that gives
> you six possible rpms to install: dbX and dbX-devel, for X in {1,2,3}.
> Based on the way distutils checks for libraries and include files (which I
> believe is mostly my fault), if you have only one of any given pair of such
> rpms, like Barry, you might wind up compiling with one version of the
> library and trying to link with a different version.
>
> I thought you were nominally against the idea of incorporating bits of mx
> into the core?
Yep; but that doesn't keep you from using them :-)
--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH
______________________________________________________________________
Company & Consulting: http://www.egenix.com/
Python Software: http://www.egenix.com/files/python/
Meet us at EuroPython 2002: http://www.europython.org/
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