On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 01:11:10AM +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote: > Is there any blocker for this? It's blocker bug for transition: db5.3 > If not, I'll do NMU (+Bug#729367: CVE-2013-4449 patch).
Do you know if the db5.1->db5.3 transition introduces any on-disk incompatibilities, for either the database or the log? We need to know whether we need to do a dump/restore of the databases from the maintainer script on upgrade. (This information wasn't included in the bug report and I haven't had a chance to hunt down the answer, so this is what's been holding up the upload.) In general, if the answer is that coordination is *not* required in the source package due to on-disk format changes, it's bad form to change the name of the -dev package. Either libdb5.3-dev should Provide: libdb5.1-dev so that a binNMU is possible, or the package name should be fixed to represent the ABI level + database format level instead of an arbitrary upstream release number. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
