Coda File System

Re: libdb

From: Ivan Popov <>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:09:24 +0200 (MET DST)
Hello Greg,

On 2 Apr 2003, Greg Troxel wrote:

> NetBSD and FreeBSD have db 1.85 as part of the base system.

> ... gdbm ... required by ...

> ... sleepycat db3 installed, required by ...

> So while a rwcdb implementation is nice, using native db, gdbm, or db3

hmm, may be not all systems are as much populated (polluted? :-)
by different packages doing similar things?..

> would have the advantage of not having more code to maintain and
> perhaps having a standard on-disk format that could be read by perl

Given the above variety, what "standard" are we talking about? :-)

On the other side, cdb can be considered pretty standard and stable,
hopefully Jan's code will not need any maintainance for years :)

> Sorry to be difficult, but I don't see why this is hard.

Unfortunately, it does not make it easier for us sitting in a bit
different boats...

> <flamebait>Are the mainstream Linux distributions really this
> broken?</>

Please no flames. Most (all) of distributions of anything (I do not
take even example names to avoid any emotional reactions) are "broken".
Many of the brokennesses can be considered fundamental, but it does not
make the software/packaging useless, and people need and use it.

Hence we have to live in a non-perfect world of OSs and distributions.

Do not forget that any dependency on a certain OS or distribution, even on
the hypothetical "right" one, reduces Coda chances to be useful and used.

My 2c,
Received on 2003-04-02 10:12:57