I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or another, but my vote is to
retain the latest version. Oracle is using a GPL license (AGPL) so
redistribution (i.e. a lack of distribution sites) should not be an issue.
The LWN article expressing concern about the AGPL was written in 2013.
Given the way things work with the FSF, many other projects will eventually
be affected by the AGPL issue anyway. (If the FSF wants all source
code/modifications to be publicly available for all GPL/free software that
has been modified and that provides, or is linked to that which provides,
public web services, then it will evolve the GPL as needed to achieve that
goal world wide.)
Furthermore, recent versions of packages tend to have fewer problems with
recent compilers.
If there were to arise a significant fork or alternative with regard to the
Berkeley DB, or we could not download it from any site without registering
with Oracle, or if we knew that db-18.1.25 or later broke a significant
number things, then I could see some solid grounds for reverting to an
older version or even to an alternate db.
In short, I think that keeping with the most recent version of packages is
the way to go to *reduce* maintenence and patch issues (by avoiding the
"code rot" problem) over the long term.
Just my $0.02,
Mike Shell
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
