Re: Packaging of libdb-6+
Dne 7.4.2014 17:47, Honza Horak napsal(a): On 04/07/2014 05:31 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: ... snap ... Does libdb-6 have the same symbol names as libdb-5? If so, there's probably not a lot of packages that can be built with libdb-6 without the possibility of causing symbol conflicts with others built against libdb-5 (which can't be updated for license reasons). Good question. Jan, can you investigate it, please? I built the upstream source for v6, and unfortunately it seems that the upstream does not version the symbols - which from the quick glance over them is the same as in v5. We will probably need to introduce the versioning, even if only downstream. Jan -- Jan Stanek - Red Hat Associate Developer Engineer - Databases Team -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Packaging of libdb-6+
On 04/03/2014 09:14 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:53:04 +0200 Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/03/2014 11:20 AM, H. Guémar wrote: Since AGPL is fedora-compliant license, there's no blocker to get libdb6 into packages collection. Besides, libdb5 is still critical for many packages (like RM), until we get rid of it, I can only agree with your proposal. Maybe, it's still time to rename the current libdb = libdb5 and get newer releases named libdb starting F21 This would be possible only by co-operation with the depended packages, since they usually use BuildRequire: libdb-devel. So after just rebuilding those to link against libdb-6, some of the packages would start to suffer from license incompatibilities. But I agree that libdb-6.x + libdb5-5.x scenario looks better than libdb-5.x + libdb6-6.x. Anyway, to make some marketing for this change, we should have a Self contained change page for this [1]. Change Proposals Submission Deadline is 2014-04-08 btw. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy#Self_contained_changes It's not a self-contained change really. Without a good deal of co-ordination it'll end up causing problems like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768846 in which there are symbol conflicts when a process ends up trying to load two different versions of libdb. I understand and agree that there is a risk of some issues, but the issues won't have platform-wide influence imho, so this doesn't seem to me like that we need to take this update as a system-wide change, if you meant that. Honza -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Packaging of libdb-6+
On 07/04/14 14:43, Honza Horak wrote: On 04/03/2014 09:14 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:53:04 +0200 Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/03/2014 11:20 AM, H. Guémar wrote: Since AGPL is fedora-compliant license, there's no blocker to get libdb6 into packages collection. Besides, libdb5 is still critical for many packages (like RM), until we get rid of it, I can only agree with your proposal. Maybe, it's still time to rename the current libdb = libdb5 and get newer releases named libdb starting F21 This would be possible only by co-operation with the depended packages, since they usually use BuildRequire: libdb-devel. So after just rebuilding those to link against libdb-6, some of the packages would start to suffer from license incompatibilities. But I agree that libdb-6.x + libdb5-5.x scenario looks better than libdb-5.x + libdb6-6.x. Anyway, to make some marketing for this change, we should have a Self contained change page for this [1]. Change Proposals Submission Deadline is 2014-04-08 btw. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy#Self_contained_changes It's not a self-contained change really. Without a good deal of co-ordination it'll end up causing problems like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768846 in which there are symbol conflicts when a process ends up trying to load two different versions of libdb. I understand and agree that there is a risk of some issues, but the issues won't have platform-wide influence imho, so this doesn't seem to me like that we need to take this update as a system-wide change, if you meant that. It's a bit borderline I think. It doesn't affect the whole platform but quite a number of otherwise unrelated packages will need updating to libdb-6, in particular rpm, httpd, any httpd modules and their dependencies that are affected, sendmail etc. Paul. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Packaging of libdb-6+
On 04/07/2014 03:51 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On 07/04/14 14:43, Honza Horak wrote: On 04/03/2014 09:14 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:53:04 +0200 Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/03/2014 11:20 AM, H. Guémar wrote: Since AGPL is fedora-compliant license, there's no blocker to get libdb6 into packages collection. Besides, libdb5 is still critical for many packages (like RM), until we get rid of it, I can only agree with your proposal. Maybe, it's still time to rename the current libdb = libdb5 and get newer releases named libdb starting F21 This would be possible only by co-operation with the depended packages, since they usually use BuildRequire: libdb-devel. So after just rebuilding those to link against libdb-6, some of the packages would start to suffer from license incompatibilities. But I agree that libdb-6.x + libdb5-5.x scenario looks better than libdb-5.x + libdb6-6.x. Anyway, to make some marketing for this change, we should have a Self contained change page for this [1]. Change Proposals Submission Deadline is 2014-04-08 btw. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy#Self_contained_changes It's not a self-contained change really. Without a good deal of co-ordination it'll end up causing problems like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768846 in which there are symbol conflicts when a process ends up trying to load two different versions of libdb. I understand and agree that there is a risk of some issues, but the issues won't have platform-wide influence imho, so this doesn't seem to me like that we need to take this update as a system-wide change, if you meant that. It's a bit borderline I think. It doesn't affect the whole platform but quite a number of otherwise unrelated packages will need updating to libdb-6, in particular rpm, httpd, any httpd modules and their dependencies that are affected, sendmail etc. This thread misses one important information. This change is not only about changing license from GPL to AGPL, but there is also a change in version, since libdb-6 is AGPLv3+ (change from GPLv2+). So, updating of the components won't happen in all cases that simple, since for some of them the upgrade would mean to introduce license incompatibility (components that are GPLv2 only like RPM). That means that some of the packages will need to stay with libdb-5 or will start link against some other GPLv2+ alternative. Honza -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Packaging of libdb-6+
On 07/04/14 15:54, Honza Horak wrote: On 04/07/2014 03:51 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On 07/04/14 14:43, Honza Horak wrote: On 04/03/2014 09:14 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:53:04 +0200 Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/03/2014 11:20 AM, H. Guémar wrote: Since AGPL is fedora-compliant license, there's no blocker to get libdb6 into packages collection. Besides, libdb5 is still critical for many packages (like RM), until we get rid of it, I can only agree with your proposal. Maybe, it's still time to rename the current libdb = libdb5 and get newer releases named libdb starting F21 This would be possible only by co-operation with the depended packages, since they usually use BuildRequire: libdb-devel. So after just rebuilding those to link against libdb-6, some of the packages would start to suffer from license incompatibilities. But I agree that libdb-6.x + libdb5-5.x scenario looks better than libdb-5.x + libdb6-6.x. Anyway, to make some marketing for this change, we should have a Self contained change page for this [1]. Change Proposals Submission Deadline is 2014-04-08 btw. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy#Self_contained_changes It's not a self-contained change really. Without a good deal of co-ordination it'll end up causing problems like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768846 in which there are symbol conflicts when a process ends up trying to load two different versions of libdb. I understand and agree that there is a risk of some issues, but the issues won't have platform-wide influence imho, so this doesn't seem to me like that we need to take this update as a system-wide change, if you meant that. It's a bit borderline I think. It doesn't affect the whole platform but quite a number of otherwise unrelated packages will need updating to libdb-6, in particular rpm, httpd, any httpd modules and their dependencies that are affected, sendmail etc. This thread misses one important information. This change is not only about changing license from GPL to AGPL, but there is also a change in version, since libdb-6 is AGPLv3+ (change from GPLv2+). So, updating of the components won't happen in all cases that simple, since for some of them the upgrade would mean to introduce license incompatibility (components that are GPLv2 only like RPM). That means that some of the packages will need to stay with libdb-5 or will start link against some other GPLv2+ alternative. Does libdb-6 have the same symbol names as libdb-5? If so, there's probably not a lot of packages that can be built with libdb-6 without the possibility of causing symbol conflicts with others built against libdb-5 (which can't be updated for license reasons). Paul. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Packaging of libdb-6+
On 04/07/2014 05:31 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On 07/04/14 15:54, Honza Horak wrote: On 04/07/2014 03:51 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On 07/04/14 14:43, Honza Horak wrote: On 04/03/2014 09:14 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:53:04 +0200 Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/03/2014 11:20 AM, H. Guémar wrote: Since AGPL is fedora-compliant license, there's no blocker to get libdb6 into packages collection. Besides, libdb5 is still critical for many packages (like RM), until we get rid of it, I can only agree with your proposal. Maybe, it's still time to rename the current libdb = libdb5 and get newer releases named libdb starting F21 This would be possible only by co-operation with the depended packages, since they usually use BuildRequire: libdb-devel. So after just rebuilding those to link against libdb-6, some of the packages would start to suffer from license incompatibilities. But I agree that libdb-6.x + libdb5-5.x scenario looks better than libdb-5.x + libdb6-6.x. Anyway, to make some marketing for this change, we should have a Self contained change page for this [1]. Change Proposals Submission Deadline is 2014-04-08 btw. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy#Self_contained_changes It's not a self-contained change really. Without a good deal of co-ordination it'll end up causing problems like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768846 in which there are symbol conflicts when a process ends up trying to load two different versions of libdb. I understand and agree that there is a risk of some issues, but the issues won't have platform-wide influence imho, so this doesn't seem to me like that we need to take this update as a system-wide change, if you meant that. It's a bit borderline I think. It doesn't affect the whole platform but quite a number of otherwise unrelated packages will need updating to libdb-6, in particular rpm, httpd, any httpd modules and their dependencies that are affected, sendmail etc. This thread misses one important information. This change is not only about changing license from GPL to AGPL, but there is also a change in version, since libdb-6 is AGPLv3+ (change from GPLv2+). So, updating of the components won't happen in all cases that simple, since for some of them the upgrade would mean to introduce license incompatibility (components that are GPLv2 only like RPM). That means that some of the packages will need to stay with libdb-5 or will start link against some other GPLv2+ alternative. Does libdb-6 have the same symbol names as libdb-5? If so, there's probably not a lot of packages that can be built with libdb-6 without the possibility of causing symbol conflicts with others built against libdb-5 (which can't be updated for license reasons). Good question. Jan, can you investigate it, please? Honza -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Packaging of libdb-6+
On 04/03/2014 11:08 AM, Jan Staněk wrote: as Oracle is unlikely to re-license the libdb6 back to GPL, Just to precise in such license matters, most of the code in older releases was covered by the Sleepycat license, a copyleft license generally thought to be compatible with the GPL (version 2), but distinct from it. -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Packaging of libdb-6+
Hello, as Oracle is unlikely to re-license the libdb6 back to GPL, I like to bring up the possibility of the libdb6 package. The idea is that the current libdb package would still provide the libdb-5+, which is still under GPL, and the new package would provide the newest, AGPL-ed libdb. I would like to hear opinions on this idea, and any suggestions are welcome. Cheers, Jan -- Jan Stanek - Red Hat Associate Developer Engineer - Databases Team -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Packaging of libdb-6+
Since AGPL is fedora-compliant license, there's no blocker to get libdb6 into packages collection. Besides, libdb5 is still critical for many packages (like RM), until we get rid of it, I can only agree with your proposal. Maybe, it's still time to rename the current libdb = libdb5 and get newer releases named libdb starting F21 best regards, H. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Packaging of libdb-6+
On 04/03/2014 11:20 AM, H. Guémar wrote: Since AGPL is fedora-compliant license, there's no blocker to get libdb6 into packages collection. Besides, libdb5 is still critical for many packages (like RM), until we get rid of it, I can only agree with your proposal. Maybe, it's still time to rename the current libdb = libdb5 and get newer releases named libdb starting F21 This would be possible only by co-operation with the depended packages, since they usually use BuildRequire: libdb-devel. So after just rebuilding those to link against libdb-6, some of the packages would start to suffer from license incompatibilities. But I agree that libdb-6.x + libdb5-5.x scenario looks better than libdb-5.x + libdb6-6.x. Anyway, to make some marketing for this change, we should have a Self contained change page for this [1]. Change Proposals Submission Deadline is 2014-04-08 btw. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy#Self_contained_changes Honza -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Packaging of libdb-6+
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:53:04 +0200 Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/03/2014 11:20 AM, H. Guémar wrote: Since AGPL is fedora-compliant license, there's no blocker to get libdb6 into packages collection. Besides, libdb5 is still critical for many packages (like RM), until we get rid of it, I can only agree with your proposal. Maybe, it's still time to rename the current libdb = libdb5 and get newer releases named libdb starting F21 This would be possible only by co-operation with the depended packages, since they usually use BuildRequire: libdb-devel. So after just rebuilding those to link against libdb-6, some of the packages would start to suffer from license incompatibilities. But I agree that libdb-6.x + libdb5-5.x scenario looks better than libdb-5.x + libdb6-6.x. Anyway, to make some marketing for this change, we should have a Self contained change page for this [1]. Change Proposals Submission Deadline is 2014-04-08 btw. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy#Self_contained_changes It's not a self-contained change really. Without a good deal of co-ordination it'll end up causing problems like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768846 in which there are symbol conflicts when a process ends up trying to load two different versions of libdb. Paul. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
