[Box Backup-dev] COMMIT r245 - box/trunk/infrastructure/m4

[Ben Summers]

On 19 Dec 2005, at 23:38, Jonathan Morton wrote:

>>> However, I notice that the code emitted by configure for this test
>>> actually tries to call dbopen(), but the linker complains that
>>> __db185_open() is missing.  This tells me that db_185.h is doing
>>> something weird that breaks.
>>
>> Interesting. db_185.h unsurprisingly #defines dbopen to  
>> __db185_open so
>> that the same .so can provide v4 and v1.85 support. That's exactly  
>> how
>> the version installed with fedora works. The odd thing is that  
>> your .so
>> doesn't seem to match your header file.
>
> Yes, I did think it odd.  Might be worth filing a bug with Gentoo.

I would like to keep things simpler for OpenBSD users by retaining  
db1 support.

>
>>> I think the real fix is to move to proper db4 support, but I have no
>>> idea what that entails.
>>
>> I agree and is what I plan. It should be fairly easy - the db4  
>> stuff is
>> all in the tree now, so really just a configure issue. However, I  
>> didn't
>> want to do this until after the next release is out because every  
>> change
>> delays it. I think now though I'll do it before.
>>
>> However I would like all the tests to pass before changing any more
>> functionality. I've only had a little time to spend on it (I think we
>> all have day jobs, even if we aren't all emigrating!), but I've  
>> worked
>> out that the raidfile failures are only on 64 bit. No further than  
>> that
>> though. I need to fix the time overflow problem on 64 bit too.
>
> Actually, I've had the opposite experience - everything working on  
> PPC64, but everything in Raidfile going crazy on PPC32.

Possibly an endian issue. I can't see any changes in lib/raidfile  
which might have caused an issue, apart from moving to use box_hton64  
and the like.

I'm still investigating.

Ben