Packaging of libdb-6+

Paul Howarth paul at city-fan.org
Mon Apr 7 15:31:58 UTC 2014


On 07/04/14 15:54, Honza Horak wrote:
> On 04/07/2014 03:51 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
>> 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 redhat.com> 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]
>>>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy#Self_contained_changes
>>>>
>>>> It's not a self-contained change really. Without a good deal of
>>>> co-ordination it'll end up causing problems like
>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768846
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> This thread misses one important information. This change is not only
> about changing license from GPL to AGPL, but there is also a change in
> version, since libdb-6 is AGPLv3+ (change from GPLv2+).
>
> So, updating of the components won't happen in all cases that simple,
> since for some of them the upgrade would mean to introduce license
> incompatibility (components that are GPLv2 only like RPM).
>
> That means that some of the packages will need to stay with libdb-5 or
> will start link against some other GPLv2+ alternative.

Does libdb-6 have the same symbol names as libdb-5? If so, there's 
probably not a lot of packages that can be built with libdb-6 without 
the possibility of causing symbol conflicts with others built against 
libdb-5 (which can't be updated for license reasons).

Paul.



More information about the devel mailing list