Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 12:58:16 -0700 (PDT) From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: chuckr@Glue.umd.edu Cc: nordquist@platinum.com, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Port of gdbm 1.7.3 to FreeBSD uploaded Message-ID: <199604121958.MAA19758@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960412143906.93A-100000@skipper.eng.umd.edu> (message from Chuck Robey on Fri, 12 Apr 1996 14:43:01 -0400 (EDT))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* You know, while I'm always glad to see the ports collection grow, this * last one puzzles me. Since we have the entire Berkeley db code in our * libc, and this gives (I think) all the functionality of gdbm, well, why * would you need gdbm. I know -current recently imported db.1.85, so it's * really up to date. Reading the postscript docs available at the dist * site, it's even supposed to be technically superior in performance to gdbm. Well, are they compatible? I mean, if there is a program that's written with gdbm in mind, and it won't compile/link/run with dbm without modification, then I think gdbm will have a place on somebody's machine (and thus the ports collection). If it's completely compatible, and dbm is better or at least not worse in all aspects, then, well it's a different story. Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604121958.MAA19758>