Replacement for libdbi

[John Ralls]

On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Derek Atkins <derek at ihtfp.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>> The problem is rather the duplicate codebase: from the point of view of
>> the distribution (Debian) as a whole, it really means that there would
>> be two copies of libdbi in it, and it is bad for the same reasons that
>> you don't want two almost identical copies of a file in a single project
>> (you rather want to factorize the common parts, which is the purpose
>> achieved by a library at the distribution level).
>> For example, that means that if a security issue were discovered in
>> libdbi, then our security team would have to analyse and possibly fix
>> two packages instead of one, hence double workload.
>> 
>> The fact that GnuCash already has embedded copies of libqof and the
>> gnumeric register is not a good reason to add more embedded copies :)
> 
> If you can get libdbi to actually fix the time_t issue (and any other
> issues that we might be having) that would be great and obviate the need
> to fork the code.  Alas, right now they seem unwilling to acknowledge the
> existence of 32-bit Linux (and in particular 32-bit time_t).
> 
> I'm afraid it's not necessarily our job to make the lives of distribution
> maintainers easier, although we certainly try whenever we can!

We’d also need the libdbi package upgraded to 0.9; we need the transaction support. It’s currently 0.8.4, even in unstable.

Regards,
John Ralls