On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:53:04 +0200 Honza Horak <hhorak@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. Paul. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
