On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:44:56PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> It appears to me that essentially it is a problem moving from 4.2 to
> 4.6, but I see nothing about the intermediate versions. Having 2
> releases is largely better than having 5 versions around, isn't it?
I was waiting for
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:43:06AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sez:
> > Having 5 different versions of one library is just insane imho. What are
>
> Maybe you could help out with the bugs here:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED];tag=oldbdb;dist=
Clint Adams schrieb:
> Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sez:
>> Having 5 different versions of one library is just insane imho. What are
>
> Maybe you could help out with the bugs here:
>
I don't know all the gory details so I don't feel capable to help with
this effort. Besides I already have
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:00:58 +0200
"Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 12:52:33AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > That's equivalent to an indefinite quarantine; according to BDB
> > upstream, OpenLDAP's problems with various versions are a
> > conseq
Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sez:
> Having 5 different versions of one library is just insane imho. What are
Maybe you could help out with the bugs here:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED];tag=oldbdb;dist=unstable
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 12:52:33AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> That's equivalent to an indefinite quarantine; according to BDB upstream,
> OpenLDAP's problems with various versions are a consequence of abusing the
> interface, not of using "advanced features". I'm not sure why the burden
> h
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > IMHO we should declare a quarantine of a minimum of 6 months on every new
> > libdb upstream, and only package it *if* openldap (*the* heavy-duty user of
> > libdb advanced features) and cyrus imap (*the* thousands-of-concurrent-
> > locks, mmap-happy
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:37:21AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>
> If you want to help reducing this number, a good point would helping
> getting more documentation about the different versions (and their
> differences) available, and (at least for me) make some backports of the
> suggested ver
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:33:20PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Today, while browsing through aptitude, I noticed that I had the
> > > following bdb versions installed:
> > > version: # of
* Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071016 17:50]:
> Today, while browsing through aptitude, I noticed that I had the
> following bdb versions installed:
>
> version: # of packages depending on it (apt-cache rdepends)
> libdb4.2 40
> libdb4.3 26
> libdb4.4 55
> libdb4.5 64
> libdb4.6 4
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Today, while browsing through aptitude, I noticed that I had the
> > following bdb versions installed:
>
> > version: # of packages depending on it (apt-cache rdepends)
> > libdb4.2 40
> > libdb4.3 26
>
Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Today, while browsing through aptitude, I noticed that I had the
> following bdb versions installed:
> version: # of packages depending on it (apt-cache rdepends)
> libdb4.2 40
> libdb4.3 26
> libdb4.4 55
> libdb4.5 64
> libdb4.6 40
> Havin
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:50:14 +0200
Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today, while browsing through aptitude, I noticed that I had the
> following bdb versions installed:
>
> version: # of packages depending on it (apt-cache rdepends)
> libdb4.2 40
> libdb4.3 26
> libdb4.4 55
> li
On 10/16/07, Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today, while browsing through aptitude, I noticed that I had the
> following bdb versions installed:
>
> version: # of packages depending on it (apt-cache rdepends)
> libdb4.2 40
> libdb4.3 26
> libdb4.4 55
> libdb4.5 64
> libdb4.6
Today, while browsing through aptitude, I noticed that I had the
following bdb versions installed:
version: # of packages depending on it (apt-cache rdepends)
libdb4.2 40
libdb4.3 26
libdb4.4 55
libdb4.5 64
libdb4.6 40
Having 5 different versions of one library is just insane imho. Wh
15 matches
Mail list logo