Bug 1788486 - Remove libdb dependency from bogofilter
Summary: Remove libdb dependency from bogofilter
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: bogofilter
Version: 38
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Adrian Reber
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 1788485 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: 1778802
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-01-07 10:52 UTC by Filip Januš
Modified: 2023-08-21 14:53 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-05-25 15:15:33 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Filip Januš 2020-01-07 10:52:07 UTC
According to more restrictive libdb licence policy exists effort to remove libdb's dependencies.
Bogofilter package is now built with libdb requirement, this package supports various databases. GDBM or LDBM seems to be good alternatives.


Actual results:
bogofilter need libdb package

Expected results:
bogofilter will run without libdb package

Comment 1 Filip Januš 2020-01-07 10:52:42 UTC
*** Bug 1788485 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Ben Cotton 2020-02-11 17:37:17 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 32 development cycle.
Changing version to 32.

Comment 3 Fedora Program Management 2021-04-29 16:01:38 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 32 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 32 on 2021-05-25.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
Fedora 'version' of '32'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 32 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 4 Ben Cotton 2021-05-25 15:15:33 UTC
Fedora 32 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2021-05-25. Fedora 32 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.

Comment 5 Milan Crha 2023-01-31 15:22:57 UTC
There is opened https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bogofilter/pull-request/1 , which I overlooked, when I've been cooking https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bogofilter/pull-request/2 . The new approach does things differently.

See it for more information, especially the part in the !2, that it might need release notes for the users, to know how to upgrade/restore their word lists.

Comment 6 Ben Cotton 2023-02-07 14:51:24 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 38 development cycle.
Changing version to 38.

Comment 7 Filip Januš 2023-08-21 14:00:26 UTC
Hi guys,
Is there any progress?

Comment 8 Milan Crha 2023-08-21 14:53:11 UTC
There are two pull requests opened:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bogofilter/pull-request/1
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bogofilter/pull-request/2

The later seems more feasible, but it's stuck on the paperwork.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.