apdsouzagmail.com
Date: Mon Jun 12 2006 - 20:19:39 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Thanks for the reply Viktor! Comments within...

On 6/12/06, Victor Duchovni <Victor.Duchovnimorganstanley.com> wrote:
> > [code]
> > bash# rpm -qa | grep db4
> > db4-devel-4.2.52-7.1
> > db4-tcl-4.2.52-7.1
> > db4-utils-4.2.52-7.1
> > db4-4.2.52-7.1
> > bash# locate db.h
> > /usr/include/db.h
> > ...
> > [/code]
>
> This is Berkeley DB, not DBM.
>
dbm support comes from berkeley db does it not?

> > bash$ make makefiles
> > CCARGS="-DDEF_CONFIG_DIR=\"/usr/local/postfix/etc\" -DHAS_DB
> > -I/usr/include" \
> > AUXLIBS="-L/usr/lib -L/lib -ldb -lpthread"
> > bash$ make
> > bash# make install
> >
> > and every single time, no matter what i do:
> >
> > bash$ postconf -m
> > btree
>
> You have "btree", which is provided by Berkeley DB.
>
> > hash
>
> And "hash". Why do you need "DBM" anyway, it is "baroque-n"...
>

just what I am used to... :) is there something that is recommended
(better, faster, etc)?

>
> You don't need HAS_DB, it is on by default for your system.
>
yes, i can compile and use btree/hash - but not dbm (which I thought
came with BDB?). If it does, shouldnt it be compiled in with
btree/hash?

Thanks again Viktor!

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]