RE: bdb and configure

["Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com>]

I notice that when BDB is enabled, the LDBM library is required to be
Berkeley. It seems we should have used a separate BDB_LIBS variable here; as
long as the LDBM API is not Berkeley we shouldn't really care what it is.
I.e., I think it would have been safe to have both gdbm and BerkeleyDB in use
in the same binary, yes?

It's only when LDBM is configured to use Berkeley and BDB/HDB are enabled
that all three must use the same Berkeley library, and then compatibility is
an issue.

  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.       Director, Highland Sun
  http://www.symas.com               http://highlandsun.com/hyc
  Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
> [mailto:owner-openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Pierangelo
> Masarati
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 3:28 AM
> To: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
> Subject: bdb and configure
>
>
> I note that in HEAD/2.2 configure.in is stuffed with checks
> for ol_enable_bdb = auto, but auto is no longer a valid value.
> On the contrary, there are many tests for ol_enable_bdb = yes
> which of course fail if ol_enable_bdb = mod, but in these
> cases mod should be a synonym of yes.  As a consequence,
> bdb cannot be built as a module, because of some check for api
> compatibility when building ldbm.  This is not bad, because
> if it's built as a module I haven't been able to make it start,
> but that should be a mostly unrelated issue.
>
> Ando.
>
>
>
>     SysNet - via Dossi,8 27100 Pavia Tel: +390382573859 Fax:
> +390382476497
>
>