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 <hho...@redhat.com> 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]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy#Self_contained_changes
It's not a self-contained change really. Without a good deal of
co-ordination it'll end up causing problems like
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768846
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.
Paul.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
