| 1 |
>>>>> "KF" == Kristian Fiskerstrand <kristian.fiskerstrand@××××××××××××××××.com> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
KF> I'm not familiar with any large difference. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I only mentioned sks because it is the only heavy user of berk db I |
| 6 |
currently run. Most either moved on to other libs or I use w/ pg. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I did get the impression from the sks list that db5 worked better than |
| 9 |
db4, though. Or perhaps that was something which sleapycat fixed in |
| 10 |
more recent versions of 4, too? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
KF> I'm testing with 5.2 for my live SKS ebuild which I've been using |
| 13 |
KF> for quite some time on a few of my servers as backends of the |
| 14 |
KF> load-balanced without any issues, |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
KF> Upgrading is relatively easy, mostly involving cleaning the |
| 17 |
KF> environment, which will be re-generated with the updated version. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The issue seen on debian was that the tools for 5.1 were used by the |
| 20 |
upgrade script when the sks-dependent-on-5.3 was released, but there was |
| 21 |
no dependency so apt didn't know to ensure that the binary dpkg required |
| 22 |
was installed. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That shouldn't be an issue on Gentoo, given that the programs installed |
| 25 |
with a given db SLOT are not dependent on any USE flags and the parallel |
| 26 |
versions tend to remain longer. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
It seems, even though I only mentioned it in an aside, I could have |
| 29 |
thought of a better example. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-JimC |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com> OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6 |
Archives