On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:31:43 +0200 Jan Staněk <jstanek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Well, in the current plan (make libdb5 "compat" package and updating > the libdb to v6), after the mass rebuild the packages would start > using v6. Yeah, which makes technical sense... but the concern is packagers who aren't paying attention rebuild for some other reason and are not on v6 when it's a licensing problem. ;( > We could do it other way around (keep libdb in v5 and make libdb6 > package), but this approach invites future problems with consecutive > versions (v7, v8 probably should not be packaged in libdb*6*). Using > another naming scheme would take care of part of the problem. Right. > I would actually prefer somebody to verify all packages that Require > libdb and work with maintainers of said packages to eventually update > their requires. If no one signes up to this, I will do it as part of > the change (but even the I could use some help). Yeah. This could be tracked with a tracker bug and bugs against the remaining packages I guess. > If this proposal seems good to you, I will update the wiki page to > reflect the agreement. Yeah, seems fine to me... kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
