Bug#167409: glibc 2.3.1: breaks XEmacs builds; system breaks on revert to 2.2.5
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 02:25:43AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <email@example.com> writes:
> Daniel> Ahem? You'd prefer we just stopped including libdb1
> Daniel> entirely and let all programs using it go to rot? That's
> Daniel> what upstream did.
> And that's exactly what Ben Collins tried to do. He told me that it
> was a Good Idea [tm] to make it as painful as possible to use db 1.85
> because it was a waste of time for him to support it, especially since
> upstream didn't.
You're not listening to yourself. I was objecting to your comment that
we did _worse_ than upstream on compatibility. Which is untrue.
> Daniel> We added libdb1-compat ourselves to
> Daniel> minimize the pain of the transition, and it did.
> You're missing some history, I suspect. That (or at least the libc6
> dependency) didn't happen until *after* I bitched, OK? And it
> wouldn't have done a damn bit of good anyway. I got hosed because db1
> was emulated using the db3 library, and the libdb1 package was broken
> because it somehow did the same thing. Even the dump utilities didn't
> work, so I couldn't build Coda with db3 and translate the permissions
> databases. There was *zero* functionality left in Debian binary
> packages to deal with db1 _databases_. Sure, get rid of the legacy
> libraries if it's a waste of time for you to maintain them, but don't
> get between me and my legacy _data_.
> Jan Harkes was so peeved he almost did rm -rf debian in the Coda
You'll also notice that you didn't have this problem until the point
where db1-compat was moved from libc to a separate package. Upstream
dropped it a LONG time before that:
2000-01-01 Ulrich Drepper <firstname.lastname@example.org>
* Makeconfig (all-subdirs): Remove db and db2.
* db/*: Removed.
* db2/*: Removed.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer