Re: libdb4.* madness in unstable
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:50:14 +0200
Michael Biebl <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?
Software packages that push bdb harder---openldap and cyrus being two
near and dear to my heart---tend to be very, very conservative about
moving, and rightly so: the openldap lists have plenty of documented
issues with, IIRC, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5, and I seem to remember Cyrus has
uncovered issues with at least 4.3 and 4.4.
That said, it does feel a little absurd to have _that many_ versions.
My understanding from light monitoring of openldap and cyrus lists
suggest 4.6 might be a good version to consider standardizing on for
a while, at least.
> Wouldn't it make sense to limit the number of bdb version in the
> archive to two or max. three?