[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] old "masked for testing" entries
From:       James Cloos <cloos () jhcloos ! com>
Date:       2014-06-30 23:11:04
Message-ID: m31tu6ro0u.fsf () carbon ! jhcloos ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

>>>>> "KF" == Kristian Fiskerstrand <kristian.fiskerstrand@sumptuouscapital.com> writes:

KF> I'm not familiar with any large difference.

I only mentioned sks because it is the only heavy user of berk db I
currently run.  Most either moved on to other libs or I use w/ pg.

I did get the impression from the sks list that db5 worked better than
db4, though.  Or perhaps that was something which sleapycat fixed in
more recent versions of 4, too?

KF> I'm testing with 5.2 for my live SKS ebuild which I've been using
KF> for quite some time on a few of my servers as backends of the
KF> load-balanced without any issues,

KF> Upgrading is relatively easy, mostly involving cleaning the
KF> environment, which will be re-generated with the updated version.

The issue seen on debian was that the tools for 5.1 were used by the
upgrade script when the sks-dependent-on-5.3 was released, but there was
no dependency so apt didn't know to ensure that the binary dpkg required
was installed.

That shouldn't be an issue on Gentoo, given that the programs installed
with a given db SLOT are not dependent on any USE flags and the parallel
versions tend to remain longer.

It seems, even though I only mentioned it in an aside, I could have
thought of a better example.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]