On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:50:14 +0200 Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today, while browsing through aptitude, I noticed that I had the > following bdb versions installed: > > version: # of packages depending on it (apt-cache rdepends) > libdb4.2 40 > libdb4.3 26 > libdb4.4 55 > libdb4.5 64 > libdb4.6 40 > > Having 5 different versions of one library is just insane imho. What > are the reasons, that we still carry around the older versions, like > 4.2 and 4.3? Is there software which doesn't build against newer > versions, are there other reasons? Software packages that push bdb harder---openldap and cyrus being two near and dear to my heart---tend to be very, very conservative about moving, and rightly so: the openldap lists have plenty of documented issues with, IIRC, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5, and I seem to remember Cyrus has uncovered issues with at least 4.3 and 4.4. That said, it does feel a little absurd to have _that many_ versions. My understanding from light monitoring of openldap and cyrus lists suggest 4.6 might be a good version to consider standardizing on for a while, at least. > Wouldn't it make sense to limit the number of bdb version in the > archive to two or max. three? Yes, but... Mike. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
