[csw-maintainers] sendmail and dbus packages

Dagobert Michelsen dam at opencsw.org
Thu Sep 3 09:32:54 CEST 2009

Hi Phil,

Am 02.09.2009 um 23:16 schrieb Philip Brown:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Dagobert Michelsen<dam at opencsw.org>  
> wrote:
>> Am 02.09.2009 um 19:00 schrieb Philip Brown:
>>> I previously suggested/requested that our berkeleydb maintainer(s),
>>> repackage the "berkeleyedb4" package, to include the old binaries  
>>> for
>>> the shared libs, until they are no longer used.
>>> This basically echos our "normal" policies about shared libs.
>> This[standard?] policy is there to avoid having multiple packages  
>> with
>> one version each. Currently we already have multiple packages
>> and correct dependencies to each package version. There is no
>> need to put all in one package. Essentially, you say "go back
>> to the old scheme and let's see that we update all builds
>> to old versions".
> That "old scheme" is a bit ambigous. Lets be a bit more explicit, and
> say "go back to CSW STANDARD scheme".
> And lets continue to be explicit and spell out the future path for  
> berkeleydb:
> Once applications have been recompiled to no longer use berkeleydb4X
> versions of the shared libs, that versioned virtual package should be
> completely removed from our repository.
> older berkeleydb4X packages should be in transition to non-existance,
> once their dependants are gone.

Yes. I propose to put the old shared libs back in to bdb4x until the
dependencies are gone and then remove them. There is really no point
in moving the shared libs in bdb4 and make bdb4x stubs. The CSW standard
doesn't apply here as we already have multiple version packages.
Apart from that I am not keen into putting a whole day of work
reorganizing the libs where we already have build descriptions for
all bdb4x packages. Not because of the work, but because there
no gain in clearance and bloat in size.
Mike, your opinion?

Best regards

   -- Dago

More information about the maintainers mailing list