Re: db1/glibc debacle
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:38:37PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 10:14:43AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > uses libdb.so.2, since it is included with libc6. People should not
> > have been using it to compile against in the first place, given all
> > my warnings from the past about this (and all the problems we've
> > already had with it trying to keep the compatibility around).
> For the next time something like this is planned: What speaks against
> a shlibs entry marking the lib as obsolete like this:
> libdb 2 unsatisfied-lib (>> 100)
Gee...no one remembers history :) I did that for woody, and all hell
broke loose. And no, not everyone does the obvious and checks first.
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/