Bug 126421
Summary: | Outdated package provided | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Mihai Maties <mihai> |
Component: | libdbi | Assignee: | Tom Lane <tgl> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | hhorak |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2005-03-17 23:01:02 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Mihai Maties
2004-06-21 14:39:57 UTC
Actually, the reason it's still 0.6.* is that the last time I spoke with the libdbi author, he felt that release 1.0 was just around the bend, and we (Red Hat) didn't want to adopt 0.7 because it represented only part of the non-backwards-compatible API changes he intended to make for 1.0. This was at least a year ago though. Do you have any more up-to-date news about the development calendar for libdbi? (It is true that we've seen little or no indication anyone is actually using libdbi in RHEL or Fedora...) I don't know of any development calendar for libdbi but considering
on how the things moved in the past I believe if we wait for 1.0
then FC4 will be shipped with 0.6.5, too :)
All I know is that the package I want to provide (a tool for
analysing traffic and identifing DoS/DDoS attacks) requires libdbi
>= 0.7 and without it I'm stuck.
Let's take this in another way: if there is little indication of
people using libdbi then nobody will complain if it's updated but
probably me (and others) will be happy. :)
The only main [packaging] difference between 0.6.5 and 0.7.2 would
be the fact that now the libdbi drivers are provided in a separate
tar.gz archive.
Okay. Now that I think about it, the decision to stick with 0.6.* was actually made in the context of RHEL3, where we have a lot of backwards-compatibility restrictions about adopting new versions with new APIs; that concern doesn't apply to Fedora. I'll work on doing this, but I can't put very high priority on it... I requested on the fedora-devel mailing list for this package to be dropped from FC4 (https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2005-March/msg00659.html) unfortunately nobody cared to answer. I am willing to maintain this package in Extras but I cannot do it if you guys keep providing the outdated version. If you do not want to drop the package from Core then you could at least update it to the latest stable version. I created 2 spec files for my repository, but with a little bit of cleanup might be of help to you: http://rpms.xcyb.org/other/libdbi.spec http://rpms.xcyb.org/other/libdbi-drivers.spec [ I set the priority to "normal" to speed up things a little considering the upcoming FC4test1 release. ] I've finally rebuilt libdbi 0.7.2/0.7.1 in rawhide. It's a bit too late for FC4test1 but should be in test2. Pushing the package out to Extras sounds good to me if there's a volunteer to maintain it. The impression I have is that Extras isn't quite stable enough for that as of FC4, but maybe by FC5. Of course Extras is at the beginning of its path and a lot of problems pop up but a set of packages would be ready for FC4. If you drop libdbi from Core I'm willing to maintain it in Extras as soon as possible. |