DBD library configured to support only DB_PRIVATE environment

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

DBD library configured to support only DB_PRIVATE environment

Marc Logemann
[accidently posted this message to the toroiseSVN list before...]

Hi,

i got one of the most annoying problems with subversion when using BDB.
I assume its the same old thing as the invalid function bug mentioned in
the subversion FAQ.

Short summary:

Suse 9.1 image install with a custom non NPTL-kernel from my provider
(1&1 - server hosting). Fresh Subversion source install. Installed BDB
needs NPTL as it seems. snvadmin create is of course also not working, i
cant create reps for instance. I think all this is the same as reported
here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91933

A RH developer said this regarding Subersion for environments like mine.

--- snipp ---
"There are two other possibilities that you do not mention
(but I suspect you know ;-):

a) internalizing db4 in important applications like svn and httpd
so that each application can choose whatever locking scheme suits
it best. This in fact is what Sleepycat recommends many years now.

b) building a separate package other than "db4" that compiles
db4 appropriately for non-NPTL applications. Much of the content
of this bug is coordinating a build of db4 that removes nptl,
well jknown."
--- snipp ---

I am also a little bit unsure if i should replace the current installed
dbd and compile a new one because apache2 uses the current dbd and i
really dont want to break things like apache2 at this point.

Then i have another problem. I have a backup of a bdb repository,
unfortunately its only a filesystem backup. Right now i cant access it
because of the DB_PRIVATE bug and even if i can access it sometime, will
it be possible to dump the data with a newer version of subversion and
dbd than of the backed up environment?

Right now i dont have too much hope that i will get this repository back
anytime soon. In the future i will go with FSFS, i hate things like
that. Subversion devs should think about using proposal (a) from RH
avoiding scenarious like these. Or why not (b), or are there any
licensing issues?

Thanks for infos on that one. I am not a linux guru or something, i just
read my tail of regarding this error...

--
regards
Marc Logemann
http://www.logemann.org
http://www.logentis.de



--
regards
Marc Logemann
http://www.logemann.org
http://www.logentis.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Loading...