* Andreas Metzler (ametzler@logic.univie.ac.at) wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 07:07:33PM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote: > > Why was this rebuilt with libdb2-dev ? Shouldn't we be trying to > > get things to db4.1 at this point ? I'd think db3 at a minimum. > > > This isn't just idle curiosity either, SASL impacts MANY packages - > > most MTAs and anything using OpenLDAP. > > > If we don't agree on a minimum, or at least a preferred lib... we're > > going to have packages linked against 3 different levels - not fun (Sorry I missed the initial thread..) Having processes linking in multiple versions of a library isn't a problem when that library uses versioned symbols (of some form or another). db has that which is why existing systems don't barf. Other things don't (SASL, LDAP, SSL) which causes problems. > Actually it is much simpler, many packages are simply not compileable > anymore: > > libldap2-dev depends on libsasl-dev [1] > libsasl-dev depends on libdb2-dev (>= 2.7.7.0-7) [2] > libdb3-dev conflicts with libdb2-dev Being not compileable is certainly not a very good thing. One would intuitively think that the better thing to do if you're compiling new things is to have a 'libdb-dev', which is what we do elsewhere. Of course, that means that things which are recompiled are done so with the latest version. That is a problem for some people with regard to libdb because they have heard of problems with the latest version of libdb. I'm not sure I agree with that reasoning personally. Perhaps it would be better to have a libdb-dev and have unstable using the latest version of it and if people run into problems with it then bugs should be filed to keep things using the problematic version of libdb from entering testing... Of course, just because these things can no longer be compiled doesn't mean that they don't exist in the repository from when they were compiled before which goes back to the versioned symbols issue in order to be able to handle multiple versions of a library being linked into the same process. I look forward to comments from others about this. Perhaps developing a way to have 'versioned includes' if you will would be a solution but I would expect it to require a fair bit of effort to deal with. Stephen
Attachment:
pgp_m_dCIEIIn.pgp
Description: PGP signature