* Clint Adams:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 08:26:18PM +, Martin Guy wrote:
Can do. Should I ask them to change to requiring libdb-dev or libdb4.6-dev?
I.E. Is the future plan to keep one version only and simply increase
libdb's version number, or to carry on from here with the 4.6 4.7 4.8
* Martin Guy:
I could if I were building for myself, but in the debian context
packages may build-depend on specific versions of libdb4.?-dev or may
be happy with any (specifying libdb-dev), some figures for how many
source packages specify the different versions in sid:
The idea is to
Package: db
Version: 4.6.21-5
Hi!
I'm trying to satisfy the build dependencies of subversion in sid,
but cannot because
- subversion build-depends on libdb4.4-dev and libaprutil1-dev
- libaprutil1-dev depends on libdb-dev
- libdb4.4-dev provides and conflicts with libdb-dev
This seems to be
* Martin Guy:
Is there a good reason not to continue the scheme used in
libdb4.[12345] ?
The name scheme is not the problem, it's the fact that all Berkeley DB
-dev packages conflict (because they all install the db.h header file).
Can't you link Subversion against Berkeley DB 4.6? According
reassign 460562 subversion
thanks
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 07:46:13PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Can't you link Subversion against Berkeley DB 4.6? According to a
report on the Subversion mailing list, the current version passes its
test suite unchanged even when using Berkeley DB.
--
To
2008/1/13, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is there a good reason not to continue the scheme used in
libdb4.[12345] ?
The name scheme is not the problem, it's the fact that all Berkeley DB
-dev packages conflict (because they all install the db.h header file).
the db.h conflict is not
reassign 460562 db
thanks
Sorry, it's not as simple as that; it impacts on more than one other package.
If you want to get everyone to use libdb4.6 instead of explicitly
4.[2345] (which would be a Good Thing, assuming 4.6 is
backward-compatible with all the others), then I think you need to
file
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 08:07:20PM +, Martin Guy wrote:
Sorry, it's not as simple as that; it impacts on more than one other package.
If you want to get everyone to use libdb4.6 instead of explicitly
4.[2345] (which would be a Good Thing, assuming 4.6 is
I certainly want that.
feel free to help out by adding to
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED];tag=oldbdb;dist=unstable
Can do. Should I ask them to change to requiring libdb-dev or libdb4.6-dev?
I.E. Is the future plan to keep one version only and simply increase
libdb's version number, or to carry on
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 08:26:18PM +, Martin Guy wrote:
Can do. Should I ask them to change to requiring libdb-dev or libdb4.6-dev?
I.E. Is the future plan to keep one version only and simply increase
libdb's version number, or to carry on from here with the 4.6 4.7 4.8
scheme of things to
10 matches
Mail list logo
