On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Matthias Julius <m...@julius-net.net> wrote: > Matthias Julius <m...@julius-net.net> writes: > >> Paul Wise <p...@debian.org> writes: >> >>> I don't see anything in the maintainer scripts that would migrate the >>> db files. Does dnshistory or libdb handle upgrading the on-disk db >>> format? Or can libdb handle older versions of the on-disk db format? >> >> I was assuming the latter. But, reading >> http://www.oracle.com/technology/documentation/berkeley-db/db/ref/am/upgrade.html >> this does not look like a safe assumption. > > According to > http://www.oracle.com/technology/documentation/berkeley-db/db/ref/upgrade/process.html > it is not even safe to assume that the API of a new major or minor > version is backwards compatible. This means that a binNMU triggered > by a libdb transition may cause the application to FTBS or not to work > correctly. > > Therefore, I am beginning to think that build-depending on libdb-dev > is not such a good idea. > > I am considering to build-depend on libdb4.7-dev to address a number > of issues: > - dnshistory can be tested when it is to be rebuilt with a new libdb > version > - when the database files need to be upgraded this can be mentioned in > debian/NEWS > - this allows to skip a couple of libdb versions potentially saving > the users unnecessary database upgrades. > > Of course, this means there will be a new upload necessary every time > the libdb version used is supposed to be dropped from the archive. > > Are there other reasons why I should not do that?
I'll let the NMUer and the libdb maintainer answer that (BCCed). > Is there a convenient way to find all reverse build-depends of a > package? build-rdeps from the devscripts package. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org