On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 06:39:46AM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote: > In troubleshooting something with dbmmanage, I came across this: > > http://marc.info/?l=fedora-extras-commits&m=137148193030744&w=2 > > I'm sure there's more context here that I haven't unearthed yet, but > does anyone (Joe?) happen to remember what the comment "zombie > dbmmanage" means here? Is dbmmanage deprecated in some way that we > should reflect in the docs?
With ht*dbm we know for certain the tool can use exactly the same set of DB libraries as mod_auth*_dbm - the same was never true for dbmmanage, which used whatever was available to Perl. I suspect dbmmanage was the last thing creating a dependency from the httpd package to Perl as well. We dropped dbmmanage from our packages a very long time ago, I think possibly even when upgrading from 1.3 to 2.0. RHEL3's httpd 2.0 packages don't have dbmmanage, from a quick check. When updating to 2.4 a bunch of scripts moved from sbindir to bindir, which fooled the spec file, dbmmanage came back to life and was unintenionally - and briefly - shipped in the Fedora RPMs again. Hence the zombie killing comment! > dbmmanage has some functionality that is lacking in htdbm - in > particular, the ability to import a plain text htpasswd style password > file. However, the script httxt2dbm fills that need, which is presumably > (usually) a one-time thing, rather than ongoing maintenance, so that's ok. Right, we ship that too. I don't recall dropping dbmmanage being controversial. Regards, Joe
