Re: How about a db 5.1.25 backport
On 2011-04-22 Ondřej Surý <ondrej@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 19:20, Andreas Metzler
> <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> wrote:
[...]
> > Afaiui the db using packages (should) fall in two camps:
> >
> > 1. Packages with an unversioned (or >= squeeze) build-dependency on
> > libdb-dev. (Probably >= 3.2) They can be switched to new bdb by
> > binNMUing and therefore must automatically handle file format upgrades
> > in their maintainerscripts, without relying checks of the package
> > version.
> > 2. Packages build-depending on the the versioned -dev packages (e.g.
> > libdb4.8-dev). Database upgrades only happen when the maintainer wants
> > them to happen, since they require a sourceful upload. The maintainer
> > can add custom handholding for each b-d update in its maintainer
> > scripts.
> > I currently fail to see how adding db 5.1 to backports.org breaks either
> > of these: The packages in 1. will usually not have b-d on the backported
> > db package, and will therefore be built against squeeze's db. The
> > packages in 2. will suddenly be backportable in straightforward way,
> > without big source changes.
> > Your point seem to be rather new broken packages in sid. - They have
> > been uploaded recently with an unversioned libdb-dev b-d without
> > handling db upgrades. This bug has not yet been triggered in sid,
> > because not db upgrade has hit them.
> > Did I understand the point correctly?
> But the world is not that simple. There are packages which depend on
> unversioned libdb-dev and have to handle database upgrades. Or they
> simply break with db5.1 (f.e. when binNMUing - f.e. libdb-ruby), or
> they build with db5.1 headers and db4.8 library (xastir and some other
> software which uses autoconf macros like this: "for db in db-4.8 ...
> db; do").
Hello,
I read this as: "We have quite a big number of packages in sid that
are already broken, by pointing libdb-dev to 5.1. i.e. they cannot be
rebuilt against sid without generating severly broken binaries."
However, please note that adding a libdb5.1 to backports will not
duplicate this problem for existing backports. - The backport
autobuilders prefer squeeze over backports for fulfilling b-d. They
wil not compile against libdb5.1 unless the backport build-depency
require the newer version.
> I would say that you should wait for db5.1 version
[...]
Okay. If there are any major pending changes in libdb5.1*, waiting is
a very good idea.
Thanks, cu andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
Reply to: