Packaging of libdb-6+

Honza Horak hhorak at
Mon Apr 7 15:47:50 UTC 2014

On 04/07/2014 05:31 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
> 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> 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.
>> 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).

Good question. Jan, can you investigate it, please?


More information about the devel mailing list