>> I found whats wrong, but not sure who is wrong: exim or FreeBSD.
>> Exim use "first? DB_FIRST : DB_NEXT" in db v2, v3, but in v1 it use
>> "R_FIRST : 0", but R_FIRST is not 0:
>>
>> /usr/include/db.h:#define R_FIRST 3 /* seq */
>>
>> FreeBSD r190495 introduced this loop, but only if used incorrectly.
>> So it looks like both should be fixed.
>> Patch was obtained from OpenBSD (and/or NetBSD) so I think same problem here.
>
> Good diagnosis, thanks.
>
> Exim should be using R_NEXT, but the previous code has worked for
> everyone until FreeBSD 8, so I suspect a value change from the defaults
> (which would be an ABI change too).
>
> > This patch fix problem for me:
>
> I filed a bug with a patch which is less likely to run into issues on
> obscure platforms where I've no idea what flags do or do not exist, when
> Exim has apparently worked fine with the old value before.
>
> http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=871
as far as i can see from webbing, this bug is still alive and well in
freebsd and exim_tidydb, correct?
randy
