Aapo Romu wrote: > We are heavily utilising back-sql on our product. Granted it has its issues > but it does so far fulfill our needs. We are currently running on 2.4.58 > which we > build ourselves for Debian and RHEL/CentOS based systems. We needed couple of > patches to back-sql to make it work for us. I just created issues (and added > my > patches) for them. I don't have a slightest idea if the patches are of any > use for you but they make our environments work. > > Removing back-sql from future releases would make us stuck with 2.4 release.
back-sql has been without an official maintainer for quite a long time. Are you volunteering to keep it maintained from this point forward? > > https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9629 > https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9630 > > --- Aapo Romu > --- Software Architect > --- Eficode Oy > > On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 00:02, Quanah Gibson-Mount <qua...@symas.com > <mailto:qua...@symas.com>> wrote: > > > > --On Sunday, August 8, 2021 6:32 PM +0100 Howard Chu <h...@symas.com > <mailto:h...@symas.com>> wrote: > > > Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > >> For 2.5, we deprecated: > >> > >> back-ndb > >> back-sql > >> back-perl > >> > >> Should these be removed for 2.6? > > > > I still routinely build back-perl in master. Is there any reason to > > remove it? > > Not necessarily, that's why I started the discussion. back-bdb was > deprecated with 2.3, but was around for all of 2.4 as well. I see no > reason to keep back-ndb around. back-sql has numerous open issues, but > I've no real insight into whether it retains any usefulness. > > --Quanah > > > -- > > Quanah Gibson-Mount > Product Architect > Symas Corporation > Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: > <http://www.symas.com> > -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
