> Only now I would trust BDB 4.2 with any mission critical data... but then, I > am the one which still builds Cyrus 2.1 against BDB 3.2 for stability (Cyrus > 2.2 will be built against BDB 4.2).
IIRC, BDB 3.3 addresses very serious problems in 3.2, but we can't have 3.3 in Debian without a painful libdb3 transition. > On a tangent, why do we still have BDB 4.1 on Debian? Isn't it "not > exactly safe" on SMP and SMT machines? Or were all bugs fixed in 4.2 also > fixed there? As soon as packages stop depending on 4.1, it is likely to be removed altogether, just as 4.0 was. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
