On Aug 12, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> wrote: > Is there a particular reason for not using the default (4.8) libdb > version for those 2 packages? They're the only reverse-depends of db5.0 > in the archive afaict. Not really, but was there a particular reason for not using the latest release of the library? Three months ago there was no reason to believe that it would not be releasable. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature