[Fwd: Re: LSARC/2007/299 Berkeley_Database_4.5.20 - fast track restarted]

[Karen Langford]

My apologies if folk get this email twice.

>>    Due to a number of customers running legacy systems on BDB 4.2 and 
>> not willing to upgrade to BDB 4.5, we need to deliver both versions. 
>
> Are the two versions incompatible in either their API's or database 
> formats?
No, just the log file formats have changed.
>
> Are any of the consumers middleware libraries that could cause both 
> versions
> to be loaded in the same process?
No.
>
> Is either version exposed for use by software built outside of Sun?
Yes, BUT external use is governed by the OS license provide by Oracle.  
They are not FREELY redistributable unless the
consuming product is made open source.  (BSD like license) This is 
clearly highlighted in the license file being delivered.
> (I know previous cases limited them to Sun only, but thought someone 
> mentioned
>  this was changing.)
>
>> 4. Other Issues Requiring ARC Guidance
>>
>>    4.1 Valid 64 bit subdirectory name
>>
>>        We currently install 64 bit packages under the subdirectory 
>> name sparcv
>>        ie: for BDB 4.2 64-bit we install to /usr/lib/sparcv9/bdb
>>        Is sparcv9 a valid subdirectory name?
>
> Absolutely - you can see that's where all the other 64-bit libraries 
> are installed on SPARC.   The rule in general is for any shared 
> library, the
> 32-bit version goes in .../lib/ and the 64-bit version in 
> .../lib/sparcv9 on
> SPARC platforms, .../lib/amd64 on x86/x64 platforms.   There's a 
> .../lib/64
> symlink to either sparcv9 or amd64 to provide platform independent 
> pathnames.
>
> It usually goes at the end of the directory path though, so for the 
> files other than the libdb.so in your pkgmap, we'd normally see
> usr/lib/bdb45/sparcv9 instead of usr/lib/sparcv9/bdb45 .
Thanks for this.
>
>>    4.2 Solaris AMD 64
>>
>>        Also we'd like to notify ARC that we plan to deliver BDB on 
>> Solaris AMD 64 bit. Currently, BDB is avilable in Solaris for sparc 
>> 32/64 bit and x86 32 bit.
>
> If you'd mentioned you weren't, we'd have told you to do this anyway, 
> so that's good.
Got you.

Thanks again,
Karen