Skip Montanaro wrote: [building bsddb185] > I suppose that's an alternative, however, it is complicated by a couple > issues: > > * The bsddb185 module would have to be built as bsddb (not a big deal in > and of itself). Why is that? I propose to build the bsddb185 module as bsddb185. It does not support being built as bsddb[module]. > * The current bsddb package directory would have to be renamed or not > installed to avoid name clashes. I suggest no such thing, and I agree that this would not be desirable. Regards, Martin
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