| msg15823 - (view) |
Author: Nick Vargish (vargish) |
Date: 2003-05-02 17:56 |
| The anydbm module attempts to import the dbhash module, which fails if there is no BSD DB module available. Relevant portion of backtrace: File "/diska/netsite-docs/cgi-bin/waisdb2.py", line 124, in _getsystemsdbm dbsrc = anydbm.open(self.dbfile) File "/usr/local/python-2.3b1/lib/python2.3/anydbm.py", line 82, in open mod = __import__(result) File "/usr/local/python-2.3b1/lib/python2.3/dbhash.py", line 5, in ? import bsddb File "/usr/local/python-2.3b1/lib/python2.3/bsddb/__init__.py", line 40, in ? import _bsddb ImportError: No module named _bsddb Tests that explicitly use "import dbm" rather than anydbm are successful on this system. |
|
|
| msg15824 - (view) |
Author: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) *  |
Date: 2003-05-03 09:02 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=21627 I think this is not a bug. open() has determined that this is a bsddb file, but bsddb is not supported on the system. Or did you mean to suggest that opening the very same file with dbm would be successful? |
|
|
| msg15825 - (view) |
Author: Skip Montanaro (skip.montanaro) *  |
Date: 2003-05-05 14:27 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=44345 I believe the attached patch does what's necessary to get this to work again. It does a few things: * setup.py builds the bsddb185 under the right (restrictive) circumstances. /usr/include/db.h must exist and HASHVERSION must be 2. In this case the bsddb185 module will be built without any extra includes, libraries or #defines, forcing whatever is present in /usr/include/db.h and libc to be used to build the module. * whichdb.py detects the older hash file format and returns "bsddb185". * bsddbmodule.c grows an extra undocumented attribute, "open". The last two changes avoid having to change dbhash.py in complicated ways to distinguish between new and old file versions. The format- detecting mess remains isolated to whichdb.py. Using this setup I was successfully able to open /etc/pwd.db on my system using anydbm.open(), which I was unable to do previously. I can also still open a more recent hash file created with anydbm.open. Finally, new files created with anydbm.open are in the later format. Please give it a try. |
|
|
| msg15826 - (view) |
Author: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) * |
Date: 2003-05-05 20:34 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=21627 I can't actually test the patch, but it looks good to me. Please apply! |
|
|
| msg15827 - (view) |
Author: Martin v. Löwis (loewis) * |
Date: 2003-05-05 21:55 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=21627 Actually, you probably need to check whether /usr/lib/libdb.* is present, and link with that as well if it is. If you are uncertain whether this is the right library, I see no way except to run a test program, at configure time, that creates a database and determines whether this really is a DB 1.85 database. Alternatively, the test program might try to invoke db_version. If the function is available, it is DB x, x>=2 (DB1 apparently has no version indication function). |
|
|
| msg15828 - (view) |
Author: Skip Montanaro (skip.montanaro) * |
Date: 2003-05-06 20:54 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=44345 Assigned to Fred for doc review - I added a couple notes to libbsddb.tex and libundoc.tex in lieu of actually creating a separate bsddb185 section which I felt would have given people the mistaken idea that the module is available for general use. Still, I thought there should be some mention in the docs. Library detection probably needs a little tweakage as well. |
|
|
| msg15829 - (view) |
Author: Fred Drake (fdrake) |
Date: 2004-06-24 06:09 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=3066 The doc changes look mostly fine to me (and I've changed what didn't; a small cosmetic nit). I'm just amazed we're still spending time tweaking BSD DB; I don't think that's ever "just worked" for me without digging around for a version of the underlying library that worked with Python. |
|
|
| msg15830 - (view) |
Author: Skip Montanaro (skip.montanaro) * |
Date: 2005-05-23 01:38 |
| Logged In: YES user_id=44345 ancient history i just never closed |
|
|