Re: postfix-3.11.4,1 does not work with lmdb-1.0.0,1, requires 0.93.5,1

[Chris]

On 2026-07-04 03:44, Daniel Engberg wrote:

On 2026-07-04 11:45, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,

On Sat, Jul 04, 2026 at 11:40:32AM +0200, Michael Grimm wrote:

Can we get databases/lmdb reverted to 0.93.5, and 1.0.0 added as a separate origin?

+1

+1 - and then depending packages can decide how they can migrate, without
breaking user setups when running a naive "pkg upgrade"... (POLA).

gert

need to get rid of the "I don't want to change" mindset especially tracking

POLA to projects we own but expecting that to carry out to third party is

these kind of issues have occurred before and will occur from time to time.

build issues, that however needs to be addressed. Given that time frame and

for upgrading 1.x instead of having multiple versions in parallel.


argue that this information wasn't easily obtainable / well communicated.

https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-annou...@openldap.org/thread/P347LVJF4UAA3XL7D7ITJGJI54UAARXC/

There are two different issues here, Migration and compatibility People really head/master. POLA is not about that, we can't police upstream projects and doing forks / extensive patching isn't reasonable and neither what any other distro / package repo does. If upstream makes changes users need to follow. We can apply obviously out of our hands. What we can do is however to inform about breaking changes and try to make the migration as painless as possible. I'm not suggesting that we knowingly should break things just to the sake of it but on the other hand Compatibility As Arch people have noted there also seems to be runtime and (?) affected ports it's likely a better idea to revert the commit and create a meta PR What can we learn from this? Changelogs are important and to be fair one could https://www.lmdb.tech --> "Technical Information" (below download button) --> More

documentation --> "Upgrading From Release
0.9"http://www.lmdb.tech/doc/upgrading.html


committer to have access to two different releases and at least three arch's

tall order, we're all humans and we can miss things. Best regards, Daniel

No CI pre commit doesn't help, "exp-run"-ish requirement/checks and expecting a (amd64, aarch64 and if possible i386 (I know its being phased out)) is a bit of a

made for a much quieter and uneventful transition.

Thank you. :)

--Chris

I don't understand the long winded defense of the way this was done. IMDB 0.9 and 1.0 are NOT mutually incompatible. IOW they can both live on the same system WITHOUT conflict. Their SO names are different. As such a port or maintainer can choose to which version they wish to link against. There was little to no reason to make v1.o mandatory. Kindly bring .9 back. Having done so in the first place would have

0xE512722F.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys