#2379 F33 System-Wide Change: Mark libdb as deprecated
Closed: Accepted a month ago by ignatenkobrain. Opened a month ago by bcotton.

This change should inform maintainers and developers about effort to remove libdb in future.


What is the actual scope of this change? Only an informative change page?
Should the -devel package be marked with Provides: deprected() ?

Technically, I've assumed that "mark libdb as deprecated package in Fedora 33" means all (sub)packages will have Provides: deprected() but you are correct that this is not explicitly stated anywhere, so maybe that was not the plan?

See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/#_marking_a_package_deprecated

Reading the change proposal, I think the intent is to mark all built RPM packages as deprecated (since they're all going to be removed in the future, not only one of them).

That said, vote is +1.

Reading the change proposal, I think the intent is...

Can the change owners clarify this please?

I change my vote to -1 until the thing si clarified.

@fjanus can you please clarify which binary packages you want to mark deprecated()?

Reading the change proposal, I think the intent is to mark all built RPM packages as deprecated (since they're all going to be removed in the future, not only one of them).
That said, vote is +1.

You are right this change wants mark libdb with all subpackages as deprecated. This information was added to the proposal.

Thank you for the clarification. +1.

I think we should make yet another clarification: right now the page implies that the package under the new license is somehow unusable ("many projects can't use it", "We would like to remove libdb from Fedora in future", etc.). But AGPLv3 is a free software license present on our "Good Licenses" list [1] and we shouldn't imply that AGPLv3 is somehow bad. The Affero version puts additional requirements on users, and those requirements and the more restrictive license would be propagated to all packages depending on libdb. The reason for removal is (to the best of my understanding) that we want to keep Fedora flexible and don't want to add those additional requirements to various packages which form the base of the distro. But having a leaf package under AGPLv3 would be OK. And the planned removal of libdb is because we want to make sure the dependency is really gone, and to avoid having an outdated package. But after the dependent packages are switched to depend on something else, and we are free to use the new license for libdb, we might just as well update libdb to the latest version under AGPLv3, as long as it is only used as leaf.

I would very much prefer to say that we want to remove any in-distro dependencies on libdb, but libdb itself might stay under the new license.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses

I change my vote back to +1.

Hence this is technically APPROVED (+4, 0, -0)

Metadata Update from @churchyard:
- Issue tagged with: pending announcement

a month ago

Metadata Update from @ignatenkobrain:
- Issue untagged with: pending announcement
- Issue close_status updated to: Accepted
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

a month ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata