Re: libdb4.* madness in unstable
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > IMHO we should declare a quarantine of a minimum of 6 months on every new
> > libdb upstream, and only package it *if* openldap (*the* heavy-duty user of
> > libdb advanced features) and cyrus imap (*the* thousands-of-concurrent-
> > locks, mmap-happy user of libdb) did not have problems with it.
> That's equivalent to an indefinite quarantine; according to BDB upstream,
> OpenLDAP's problems with various versions are a consequence of abusing the
> interface, not of using "advanced features". I'm not sure why the burden
> here should be on BDB alone.
That's news to me. Thanks for sharing. Well, Cyrus at least does not abuse
*any* interfaces (unless having thousands of processes in a busy site
accessing the same BDB is abusing it :p), but it is not nearly as good as
openldap at triggering BDB bugs.
One thing that BDB upstream *could* do is to publish a *complete* API
changelog. That would fix the issues for Cyrus, at least. One fine-comb
over the API changelog and the Cyrus code, and you would be ready to support
a new BDB version...
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot