hi,
I'm sorry that I've stopped its progress.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Ian Jackson
<ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Keith Lawson writes ("How to close bug #620550?"):
>> I'm looking for advice on how to get bug #620550[1] closed. This
>> thread[2] on php-maint is the only record I can find of why PHP was
>> switched from GDBM to QDBM. That change introduced gdbm_ symbol
>> conflicts that end up breaking GDBM functionality in other packages
>> (mod_perl2 in my case). I provided patches (which may or may not be the
>> correct approach) to enable building QDBM without the "GDBM emulation"
>> but haven't seen any activity on the bug in months. On all our
>> production squeeze servers we've had to resort to building QDBM from
>> source and replacing the shared lib from the Debian package with our own
>> which isn't ideal. Should that bug be flagged as RC since it breaks
>> functionality in other packages? It would be nice to ensure this problem
>> doesn't exist in the next Debian release if it can't be fixed in stable.
> Yes. That bug is definitely RC. IMO it should be cloned into two
> bugs:
> 1. qdbm should not provide gdbm emulation (except perhaps in
> a separate, separately-installable, .so, although why you'd
> want to use that in Debian is far from clear)
> This bug is RC.
I want to make libqdbm14 dropping gdbm emulation, and add a new
exclusive libqdbm14-gdbm package to provide compatibility for people who
uses its gdbm emulation. But, I have trouble with packaging to satisfy
dpkg-gensymbols, and stop packaging there...
I will ask for help at mentros about how to treat symbols in such case.
regards,
--
KURASHIKI Satoru
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/CAM0xXk-k4L5y-WWRduZjVkUgAK9LEOEfRUdX8R=g-J=bvoq...@mail.gmail.com
