Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade
Clint Adams <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Why? (technical reasons, please). Not that I am assuming there is enough
>> evidence to downgrade anything but OpenLDAP just yet, but your reply seems
>> to imply that even if there were, you would still not downgrade.
> If there were anything besides FUD, I'd consider it on its own merits,
> but all I've seen thus far is an anecdote that OpenLDAP has trouble with
> some version of db4.3 on some platform because of some undescribed flaw
> related to the log format change. There does not appear to be a report
> in the Debian BTS about this problem.
The problem has nothing to do with a log format change. It has to do with
the way BDB 4.3 handles logs, period. And it isn't any one platform, I've
encountered it on multiple linux 2.4 kernel based platforms, Solaris 8, and
Solaris 9. The most common error that happens is the BDB log environment
suddenly claims it is out of memory, and it is then impossible to run
db_archive or db_recover. Applications that use the DB_INMEMORY_LOGS
flags for BDB 4.3 are especially prone to this issue.
> So, given that I don't see any reason to expect problems from db4.3, and
> that it would be painful for sarge and sid users to switch back to
> db4.2, I don't intend to do so.
> Now, as far as pestering other maintainers goes, I don't believe there's
> a point there either. Most of the packages currently built against
> libdb4.3 don't use transactional environments, and thus cannot be bitten
> by the txn log problem mentioned by Quanah Gibson-Mount.
I never said there was a transaction log problem. I said that BDB 4.2
doesn't support the transaction methods that BDB 4.3 was, which is a
deficiency in BDB 4.2, not 4.3, that can be mended by a particular patch
to BDB 4.2, but I don't recommend doing that for the general case, because
whatever application is being compiled against BDB 4.2 in that case will
also likely need patching.
> If there are any real problems with software built with Debian's db4.3
> packages (which are built quite differently than Fedora's, for example),
> they should be reported so they can be fixed.
I suggest you read back over what I wrote in previous posts more
carefully, because you seemed to miss most of it.
Principal Software Developer
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html