[Pkg-openldap-devel] Re: r553 - openldap/trunk-2.2/debian

[Steve Langasek]

--T7mxYSe680VjQnyC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Torsten,

On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:27:28AM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 12:07:41AM +0000, Steve Langasek wrote:

> > Modified:
> >    openldap/trunk-2.2/debian/changelog
> >    openldap/trunk-2.2/debian/move_files
> > Log:
> > make libldap a symlink to libldap_r

> In principle you are right. Keeping two versions is next to useless.
> But: There is no guarantee that software working with libldap (and if by
> accident) will work with the reentrant version.=20

> Adding the use of threading primitives is a non-trivial change. Adding
> the different versions of libc threading makes things more complicated.
> It should not cause any problems but I have a bad feeling about that
> change and we want to release soon. Let's do this after sarge, please.=20

Unfortunately, I think we need to establish such guarantees, because of bug
#306258: there is no way to solve this bug without either a) adding symbol
versioning to libldap and libldap_r (breaks two-way binary compatibility
with other distros), or b) getting rid of the second version of the library.

So, this change on trunk2.2 is an attempt to stage the same change for
trunk, pre-sarge. :/

I've already checked that the symbols exported between libldap and libldap_r
are identical on the 2.2 branch (that's how I caught the bug about the NTLM
patch being missing :).  We should additionally check with icheck that the
header files export the same interface.

The multiple thread libraries on Linux should not be an issue, since the
LinuxThreads version *must* be forwards-compatible with NPTL; and in any
case, none of the crazy code that *creates* threads from inside libldap
should ever be triggered outside of slapd (which means it doesn't belong in
the library in the first place, grr).

So, while this does look like a scary change to be putting in place, I don't
think we have much choice if we want our users to be able to use LDAP in
sarge without random segfaults.

--=20
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

--T7mxYSe680VjQnyC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCg0wgKN6ufymYLloRAtzLAJ9NLJ7+7HfyPzllvrjDKOZqEfJbzQCeJuYz
h00+K3sjKWfwA5nNQ/Qn19s=
=/x3U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--T7mxYSe680VjQnyC--