[Pkg-openldap-devel] Recommendation for ldbm to bdb

[Steve Langasek]

--0/kgSOzhNoDC5T3a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 08:48:33AM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> Hi Matthijs,=20

> On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 01:28:10PM +0200, Matthijs Mohlmann wrote:
> > Here the patch (with svn diff) that recommends bdb.

> Great, thanks. I hope it's okay to discuss the changes for a bit...

> Generally what I don't like is that the changes are tied to changing
> ldbm to bdb. I'd expect that some day the hdb backend will be the
> recommended one so I'd like to replace the invokation of
> configure_ldbm_to_bdb to something like

> 	change_backend ldbm bdb

> or something along that line.=20

Do you consider this a prerequisite for getting this fixed for sarge?
Please keep in mind that LDBM usage in 2.2 is currently associated with an
RC bug, #304735.  I don't think generalizing the code buys us anything for
sarge.

> > What the patch does:
> > if the user has ldbm in the current configuration
> > ask for switching to bdb (see configure_dumping).

> Quoting the template for that change:

> > +_Description: Changing database backend.
> > + It is highly recommended to use the BDB backend. This is also the rec=
ommended
> > + choice of the OpenLDAP developers. The LDBM backend has proven to be =
more
> > + reliable in earlier versions of OpenLDAP. (Versions 2.1.30 and below)
> > + .
> > + When using the BDB backend make sure you configure BDB properly. For=
=20
> > + information to do so, see: http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/893=
=2Ehtml.

> Given that we had only problems with people running ldbm I think we
> should even enforce changing the backend during upgrade. Comments?

I think converting should be the default, and the question should probably
be of medium priority.  If we're worried that users should know what's
happened, then perhaps a high-priority debconf note should be displayed
*after* the change is made.

Does that sound reasonable?

Thanks,
--=20
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

--0/kgSOzhNoDC5T3a
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)

iD8DBQFCkfoiKN6ufymYLloRAtG+AKCCwVJU0r3HMOvcbmuIaUsok1hk6ACfQNA+
k41H/25yClOJ03cd9N8W/0g=
=WMcV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--0/kgSOzhNoDC5T3a--