Steffen Joeris wrote: > On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 05:10:12 pm Romain Beauxis wrote: >> Le Tuesday 07 April 2009 22:59:00 Sebastien Delafond, vous avez écrit : >>> On Apr/07, Mike Hommey wrote: >>>> While I see why it can be needed for python, I fail to see how it is >>>> important for jruby... >>> to have 2 versions of jruby available ? I guess so you can at least, for >>> instance, try the new one on your existing jruby code without removing >>> the old one, for instance ? >> If we were to apply this policy to all software packaged in debian, that >> would be a mess. > It would be a security mess as well, I don't particularly want to fix the same > issue in 2-4 packages ... > >>> Are you advocating for only one instance of jruby at all times in the >>> archive ? If so, why ? >> I think this is the other way round: by default there should be only one >> version per package -- after all that is why we have package name and >> package version.. >> >> Hence, it should be explained why multiple version of the same package are >> relevant for Debian and its users. And I don't think that "testing several >> versions" is a good explanation.. > If a dozen (or more) packages really need the older version, then it could be > discussed I guess (some details here would be nice). But I agree that having > it around for "testing" reasons is not a valid reason. Sorry for hijacking the thread, but what are the plans for bdb in squeeze, I'm counting 5 atm: libdb4.2 libdb4.4 libdb4.5 libdb4.6 libdb4.7 Are there plans to reduce this? Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature