[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New project goal: Get rid of Berkeley DB (post jessie)

Hi Russ,

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014, at 16:10, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org> writes:
> > <with my Berkeley DB maintainer hat + downstream packages>
> > my view is that Berkeley DB is dead since Oracle relicenced it to AGPL3;
> > I also think there are better alternatives for key-value storage
> > databases like LMDB (http://symas.com/mdb/) (or possibly others like
> > LevelDB, Tokyo/Kyoto, etc. we don't have to settle on one common
> > solution).
> > So I think that we can probably get rid of the Berkeley DB at the places
> > where it's used like a simple key-value database.
> > It would require some amount of cooperation with upstream and some work
> > within the packaging (converting the database at the upgrade time).
> We would need to continue to support it in Debian for reading existing
> Berkeley DB key/value pair databases via such things as Perl's DB_File.
> I know I'm not the only one who has tons of key/value pair Berkeley DB
> files scattered around from inumerable pieces of local code or packages
> like krb5-strength.

Yes, and I will support db5.3 as far as I can. On the other hand it
hurt to not grow the number of new Berkeley DB files in the world if
there's better and free/libre replacement, right?

> That said, I don't think the Berkeley DB key/value pair on-disk data
> structure could be all that complex, the algorithms around such a thing
> are very well-understood, and I don't think the implementation has
> changed
> in years and is therefore unambiguously under a good license.  Maybe
> someone could fork just this portion of Berkeley DB without all the
> complex transaction stuff and take over upstream maintenance of just
> that?

Or we can just keep db5.3 forever and wait what will BSD folks do.
Maybe we will end up with LibreDB (*cough*)...

Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org>
Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server

Reply to: