On Monday 21 March 2011, Peter Samuelson wrote: > Since only a single libdb*-dev can be installed at a time, and > since libaprutil1-dev Depends on one of them, any apr-util reverse > dep is forced to use the same bdb version. Even though, in > Subversion's case, we don't use the apr-util frontend to libdb* at > all. > > My preferred solution is to decouple apr-util and libdb, by not > having the Depends in libaprutil1-dev. I note that (at least for > Subversion) this should not pose any problems at runtime: libdb > uses symbol versioning, and libsvn1 picks up the correct Depends: > libdb4.8 via dpkg-shlibdeps. > > The only reason I can see for libaprutil1-dev to depend on > libdb*-dev is /usr/include/apr-1.0/apu_want.h, a feature where an > application can request an include of db.h. I wonder if any of > its reverse deps are actually using this very minor > feature. Subversion can optionally find the right db.h that way, > but we don't use it in Debian. > > Anyway, I wonder if any other reverse deps of apr-util would break > if it stopped depending on libdb*-dev. Even if so, adding some > "Build-Depends: libdb4.8-dev" or similar to a few packages seems > reasonable to me.
Some googling hasn't revealed any user of apu_want.h outside of apr- util itself. I agree that removing the dependency looks like the best idea. > To answer your original question, I have not tested Subversion with > libdb 5.1. I will try to remember to do that soon. There are > upstream indications that it is compatible. As subversion itself has a build-dep on libdb4.8-dev, it should be possible to remove libaprutil1-dev's dep without breaking subversion. I will do that with the next upload. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org