Re: Excess copies of libdb

2004-03-30 Thread Clint Adams
> This give me a question (just curious). Is there any specific reason we > didn't have packages 3.3.11? I can't answer that.

Re: Excess copies of libdb

2004-03-30 Thread Clint Adams
> Note that upgrading applications to new libdb versions is generally more > work than you expect, as on-disk databases need to be upgraded. > Sometimes you can use the db*_upgrade tools, sometimes you can dump and > reload, sometimes it's acceptable and much easier to trash the database > and rebu

Re: Release Update - proposed packages

2004-03-30 Thread Bob Hilliard
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > * Where possible, avoid new major upstream versions of other packages. > If in any doubt about whether an upgrade is appropriate, contact the > release team. I have been planning to package and upload two new upstream versions of existing pa

Re: Old RC bugs

2004-03-30 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 02:55:30AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: >... > > db3 > > #223142, #234507 > > db4.0 > > #223140 > > I know we can't remove them. One of the base problems > > It would be nice to see fewer copies of libdb in sarge, in all honesty. >... There is external (non-free) software

Re: Old RC bugs

2004-03-30 Thread Josip Rodin
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 11:09:58PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > db3 > > > #223142, #234507 > > > db4.0 > > > #223140 > > > I know we can't remove them. One of the base problems > > > > It would be nice to see fewer copies of libdb in sarge, in all honesty. > > There is external (non-free) sof