Jon Eisenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm building a package that depends on gdbm 1.8.0, which is newer > than the version Debian uses. I notified the gdbm maintainer, but > have not received a response.
Well, a response _was_ sent. -- James | From nobody Sun Jan 21 16:52:16 2001 | Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: GDBM 1.8.0 | References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Mail-Copies-To: never | From: James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Date: 21 Jan 2001 16:52:16 +0000 | In-Reply-To: Jon Eisenstein's message of "Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:43:27 -0500 (EST)" | Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7 | MIME-Version: 1.0 | Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii | Lines: 25 | Xref: dt-jtlaptop.datatrans 2001/mail-01-January:156 | X-Gnus-Article-Number: 156 Sun Jan 21 16:52:16 2001 | | Jon Eisenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | > I know there's a bug report already filed about this, so I don't want to | > pester you, but I'd just like to know if you're updating the packaged GDBM | > for Debian to 1.8.0. I'm packaging the new TinyMUSH, which depends on that | > version, but it includes the source to compile a non-shared gdbm1.8 if it | > is not available on the system. So, before I go ahead and include that in | > the build process, could you just tell me if the new version will be in a | > Debian package fairly soon? | | > From /usr/share/doc/libgdbmg1/changelog.Debian.gz: | | | gdbm (1.7.3-27) unstable; urgency=low | | | | * No 1.8 yet because a) the soname has changed, making packaging it less | | trivial, b) the upstream changes are not hugely important and c) 1.8 | | appears after 5 years of upstream inactivity and has since been | | followed by another 18 months of upstream inactivity despite some | | trivial and annoying build bugs in 1.8 which must hit almost everyone | | who tries to build it from source. | | So; go ahead and include the non-shared gdbm1.8. | | -- | James