Packaging of libdb-6+

Paul Howarth paul at
Mon Apr 7 13:51:21 UTC 2014

On 07/04/14 14:43, Honza Horak wrote:
> On 04/03/2014 09:14 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:53:04 +0200
>> Honza Horak <hhorak at> wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2014 11:20 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
>>>> Since AGPL is fedora-compliant license, there's no blocker to get
>>>> libdb6 into packages collection.
>>>> Besides, libdb5 is still critical for many packages (like RM), until
>>>> we get rid of it, I can only agree with your proposal.
>>>> Maybe, it's still time to rename the current libdb => libdb5 and get
>>>> newer releases named libdb starting F21
>>> This would be possible only by co-operation with the depended
>>> packages, since they usually use "BuildRequire: libdb-devel". So
>>> after just rebuilding those to link against libdb-6, some of the
>>> packages would start to suffer from license incompatibilities. But I
>>> agree that libdb-6.x + libdb5-5.x scenario looks better than
>>> libdb-5.x + libdb6-6.x.
>>> Anyway, to make some marketing for this change, we should have a Self
>>> contained change page for this [1]. Change Proposals Submission
>>> Deadline is 2014-04-08 btw.
>>> [1]
>> It's not a self-contained change really. Without a good deal of
>> co-ordination it'll end up causing problems like
>> in which there are symbol conflicts when a process ends up trying to
>> load two different versions of libdb.
> I understand and agree that there is a risk of some issues, but the
> issues won't have platform-wide influence imho, so this doesn't seem to
> me like that we need to take this update as a system-wide change, if you
> meant that.

It's a bit borderline I think. It doesn't affect the whole platform but 
quite a number of otherwise unrelated packages will need updating to 
libdb-6, in particular rpm, httpd, any httpd modules and their 
dependencies that are affected, sendmail etc.


More information about the devel mailing list