[csw-maintainers] berkeleydb saga

[James Lee]

On 03/09/09, 18:18:31, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote regarding
Re: [csw-maintainers] berkeleydb saga:

> >>> Well, there is ONE reason to do it "the standard way":
> >>> new packages, tend to follow the pattern of older packages.
> >> ...
> >>
> >> The bdb4x packages will most certainly never get an update. The
> >> only package to be updated would be bdb4, which already contains
> >> 4.7.x, so no worries there.

CSWbdb4 contains no files, only links to CSWbdb.



> > my point being, that someone updating bdb4, in the distant future, may
> > see the old, versioned packages, and think, "oh ok, I'd better follow
> > the existing 'standard' for berkeleydb, and make a separate, new,
> > berkeleydb4.8 package"

> Let me put it that way: At least *I* will never forget this,
> and I'm sure Mike and you won't either. And if in the distant
> future somebody takes over bdb and all of us are no longer
> project members I don't care. It is just too much work to
> build a unified bdb4 only for "the sake of consistency"
> and taking the negative side effects that every package
> depending on bdb would pull in all versions as they would
> be contained in bdb4, right? It would not make things
> clearer.

I'm confused as to why CSWbdb exists.  It's not legacy because it's
new.  We are in the habit of suffixing the software name with the
major version number.  The CSWbdb4 should be the 4.X package and
currently contain version 4.7 files plus links for the legacy 4.2
libs.  We have no need of CSWbdb.




James.