Start of db 3.0.x support for nss_db

[Andreas Jaeger]

>>>>> Mark Kettenis writes:

Mark>    From: Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>
Mark>    Date: 05 Jan 2000 10:07:56 +0100

Mark>    I'm adding a first patch for db30 support.  I also need to update
Mark>    makedb.c but like to hear your comments before I continue.

Mark> Unfortunately, the DB error return codes (DB_KEYEMPTY and DB_NOTFOUND)
Mark> were also changed in DB 3.X.

I know :-( but nearly forgot it.  Thanks for reminding me.

Mark> Fortunately, the release notes for 3.0.55 say:

Mark>    The Berkeley DB interfaces have been reworked in the 3.0.55 release
Mark>    for two reasons. The goals were as follows: to make the Berkeley DB
Mark>    structures opaque so future releases of Berkeley DB can be binary
Mark>    compatible with each other, ...

Mark> so the interfaces may stabilize, and adding support for DB 3.X seems
Mark> to be a good move!

Mark> However, I'm not sure whether having a fixed list of library names is
Mark> such a good idea.  The format of the databases on disk depens in the
Mark> DB version.  A hard-coded list means that if the DB library is
Mark> upgraded, the nss_db module might stop working.  This can be fixed by
Mark> regenerating the databases, but what if the someone uses a different
Mark> LD_LIBRARY_PATH from time to time, or worse, has applications with
Mark> different RPATH's?  I think we should allow the user to specify the
Mark> path of the DB library in a configuration file to make sure there will
Mark> be no nasty surprises.

I agree.  The question is: What's the name of the configuration file
and how should it be specified?  Can we add this to
/etc/nsswitch.conf?

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de