[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libdb4.* madness in unstable

* Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> [071016 17:50]:
> 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?

If you want to help reducing this number, a good point would helping
getting more documentation about the different versions (and their
differences) available, and (at least for me) make some backports of the
suggested version people should use in your opinion available for etch
(via backports or whatever). At last I don't have the heart to change
to another version without giving it some more robust try
privately (as libdb has not the nicest history of ugly quirks and
shortcomings in the different versions) before that. And robust try
means real work test means within a (at least mostly) stable environment.

	Bernhard R. Link

Reply to: