Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 09:00:16AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> That's the largest and most noticable issue. Quanah's reported other >> problems as well in edge cases. It's a moot point at this point since >> db4.4 is out and (suitably patched) will work fine for OpenLDAP. > What does "suitably patched" mean? <http://www.stanford.edu/services/directory/openldap/configuration/bdb-build-notes.html> > FWIW, based on the experience with sarge on db.debian.org, I regard the > sarge slapd packages as something of a disaster: having to add indices > to all searchable attribs to prevent slapd from getting stuck in a busy > loop, having db4.2_verify return warnings consistently whether or not > it's a fresh database load... Oh, yeah, I don't disagree. However, I do think that the things that the OpenLDAP folks are finding are real flaws in BerkeleyDB. For better or worse, OpenLDAP stresses BerkeleyDB as much as any package in Debian. > Anyway, I'm certainly game for getting things moved to whichever version > of libdb actually works best, but so far the OpenLDAP recommendations > don't really seem to have amounted to much given that the ldbm backend > was abandoned for "stability" reasons only to be replaced by a BDB > backend that hasn't worked right with any of the libdb packages in > Debian so far, despite these same libdb versions working well for all > other packages I know of. It works fine with the 4.2.52 version in Debian. The OpenLDAP *in Debian* may not due to bugs in that release, but OpenLDAP built from source is quite happy with the 4.2.52 in Debian. It has all of the patches mentioned above applied to it. But I think the path forwards is to go to 4.4. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
