Re: libdb4.* madness in unstable
On 10/16/07, Michael Biebl <email@example.com> wrote:
> Today, while browsing through aptitude, I noticed that I had the
> following bdb versions installed:
> version: # of packages depending on it (apt-cache rdepends)
> libdb4.2 40
> libdb4.3 26
> libdb4.4 55
> libdb4.5 64
> libdb4.6 40
> Having 5 different versions of one library is just insane imho. What are
> the reasons, that we still carry around the older versions, like 4.2 and
> 4.3? Is there software which doesn't build against newer versions, are
> there other reasons?
> Wouldn't it make sense to limit the number of bdb version in the archive
> to two or max. three?
Interesting because I was wondering about the same thing, and even
worse is that each of those takes way too many CPU cycles to build.
my place on the web: