From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.windriver.com (mail.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E9CD6057A for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:19:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.15.2/8.15.1) with ESMTPS id u8SGJvY9010669 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 09:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from soho-mhatle-m.local (172.25.36.226) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.294.0; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 09:19:57 -0700 To: References: <1475019786-20996-1-git-send-email-anibal.limon@linux.intel.com> <57EB044C.3070505@linux.intel.com> <57EBDC0E.9030108@linux.intel.com> <596619b6-5742-3284-0966-9ae0c9a7c5a3@windriver.com> From: Mark Hatle Organization: Wind River Systems Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:19:56 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [PATCH] db: Upgrade to 6.0.35 X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:19:57 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/28/16 10:44 AM, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > On 09/28/2016 06:44 PM, Mark Hatle wrote: >> On 9/28/16 10:26 AM, Khem Raj wrote: >>> We need to understand that disclaimer may be its requiring every one who is >>> distributing it to accept it. >> >> It is purely Oracle wanting to stop people from automatically downloading from >> them, also so they can harvest sales contacts. (nothing wrong with that, but it >> means that we should likely pick a different 'upstream'...) >> >> As Anibal indicated, the license itself has not changed -- so that is not an issue. > > Mark, what is the current situation with 6.1/6.2 series of db? Are those > fit for updating to? There are issues with the way BerkleyDB handles certain files. Once that we've not have any time or resources to investigate. So we're stuck w/ 6.0.35 right now. (The issues have to do with journal file generation in a cross environment with RPM 5. All I know is that it wasn't working before, most likely due to a configuration issue, but I've simply had no time to investigate.) Symptoms: Either during rootfs generation we get failures or code appears to work fine the first time through, but as soon as you run it on the target everything breaks. > Alex >