F21 System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6

Kevin Fenzi kevin at scrye.com
Thu Apr 24 14:50:53 UTC 2014

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:31:43 +0200
Jan Staněk <jstanek at redhat.com> wrote:

> Well, in the current plan (make libdb5 "compat" package and updating
> the libdb to v6), after the mass rebuild the packages would start
> using v6.

Yeah, which makes technical sense... but the concern is packagers who
aren't paying attention rebuild for some other reason and are not on v6
when it's a licensing problem. ;( 

> We could do it other way around (keep libdb in v5 and make libdb6
> package), but this approach invites future problems with consecutive
> versions (v7, v8 probably should not be packaged in libdb*6*). Using
> another naming scheme would take care of part of the problem.

> I would actually prefer somebody to verify all packages that Require
> libdb and work with maintainers of said packages to eventually update
> their requires. If no one signes up to this, I will do it as part of
> the change (but even the I could use some help).

Yeah. This could be tracked with a tracker bug and bugs against the
remaining packages I guess. 
> If this proposal seems good to you, I will update the wiki page to
> reflect the agreement.

Yeah, seems fine to me... 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140424/2851821a/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the devel mailing list