Re: removing libdb 4.3

2008-10-05 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 15:04 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > The bug on mmorph was not filed by the db maintainers, it was filed by a > release manager. I guess mmorph was overlooked when the db maintainers > filed bugs requesting migration to db4.6 a year ago. That's unfortunate, > but it's not a

Re: removing libdb 4.3

2008-10-05 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 02:32:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 10:24 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 04:59:03PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > I completely agree that libdb4.3 is ancient grot, and it should be > > > removed from the a

Re: removing libdb 4.3

2008-10-05 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 10:24 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 04:59:03PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > I completely agree that libdb4.3 is ancient grot, and it should be > > removed from the archive. > > > > I am distressed that the maintainers decided to wait until t

Re: removing libdb 4.3

2008-10-05 Thread Pierre Habouzit
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 04:59:03PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > I completely agree that libdb4.3 is ancient grot, and it should be > removed from the archive. > > I am distressed that the maintainers decided to wait until the freeze to > do that. This is entirely *backwards*. The time to

removing libdb 4.3

2008-10-03 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
I completely agree that libdb4.3 is ancient grot, and it should be removed from the archive. I am distressed that the maintainers decided to wait until the freeze to do that. This is entirely *backwards*. The time to decide, "hey, this library should be removed" is at the *beginning* of the rele