Re: [Evolution] db3

[Dan Hensley <dan hensley attbi com>]

On Tue, 2002-01-22 at 22:31, Sergey V. Udaltsov wrote:
> > You know, you're of course free to do whatever you want in regards to
> :)) Thanks
> > db3, but my question is:  Why do you insist on using 3.2.9 for evolution
> > rather than 3.1.17?  If 3.1.17 is built statically into evolution, why
> > do you insist on using something else?  What will 3.2.9 (presumably
> > built and linked dynamically?) in evolution get you that you don't
> > already have?
> I do not insist on 3.2.9. I just would like to be able to use any
> version of db3 (3.3.x, 3.4.x) redhat is shipping with its OSes. Without

This is precisely why Ximian forced a specific version of db3.  The
binary db format changes every now and then without warning, and it's
not nice enough to be able to handle previous formats.  Therefore when
you upgrade Linux on your machine and get a new db3 version, your
existing addressbook may or may not work.  It bit a lot of people (me
included).  I built a new computer earlier this year.  I then moved my
evolution directory over from my old computer, and all of a sudden my
contacts disappeared and I couldn't create new ones.  All because the
db3 on my new system was a different version from the db3 on my old
system.

So in this case Ximian did the right thing.  And as someone else pointed
out, db3 doesn't take a whole lot of space.

Dan



> spending extra N megs for 3.1.17. Since I always build evo myself (every
> version), I have to have 3.1.17 installed all the time (/opt/db3...).
> BTW, should I really explain what are the disadvantages of static
> linking?
> Again, there is nothing here about insisting. I am really grateful to
> Ximian for its wonderful product and all its functionality. I just
> thought it is very small issue. I was wrong:)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sergey
>
> _______________________________________________
> evolution maillist  -  evolution ximian com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution