Surely just re-compiling from new source (and not changing much else), would be a start. Where upstream bugs have been fixed, it would be an easy win, even where they are not, at least bugs reported on modern versions can then be addressed.
That document says little, it is a good summary of the situation, but it does not mention any actual bugs outstanding. I counted maybe 4 people offering help, was that followed up ? Issues with packaging such as version dependencies or poor choice of versions for "stable" packages, notwithstanding. Maybe the answer is to leave "stable" versions of client versions asis, and build a (mostly) self contained server version, with no legacy library deps.. System tools can stay dependent on the "stable" versions, the server version can include newer libraries & tools.. no need to invent artificial barriers to progress.. > On 18 Mar 2014, at 8:54 am, Joshua Schaeffer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not to beat a dead horse and not to bash on Debian (personally Debian is the > only distro I use), but to further help other people make a decision as to > which version they should/may want to install: the slapd package included > with Debian or the latest version from source: > > The Debian community is fully aware of the numerous issues with their > OpenLDAP package and acknowledges that it needs work, they have also been > asking for help with OpenLDAP for some time (1878 days according to their > "work-needing packages" list): > > openldap (#512360), requested 1878 days ago > Description: OpenLDAP server, libraries, and utilities > Reverse Depends: 389-admin 389-ds-base 389-ds-base-dev > 389-ds-base-libs 389-dsgw adcli alpine am-utils aolserver4-nsldap > apache2-bin (200 more omitted) > Installations reported by Popcon: 163954 > As the entry specifies bug #512360 in the BTS gives additional information > about what work is needed: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=512360 > > > Thanks, > Josh > > >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Quanah Gibson-Mount <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> --On Monday, March 17, 2014 9:00 AM +0100 Ulrich Windl >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>> Dieter Klünter<[email protected]> schrieb am 14.03.2014 um 21:50 in >>> Nachricht >>> <[email protected]>: >>>> Am Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:27:10 +0100 >>>> schrieb "Ulrich Windl" <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> >>> Quanah Gibson-Mount <[email protected]> schrieb am 13.03.2014 um >>>>> >>> 19:03 in >>>>> Nachricht <34E9E18C6D0A7C6D92162635@[192.168.1.46]>: >>>>> > --On Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:56 PM -0500 [email protected] >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Version 2.4.31-1+nmu2 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Plain syncrepl. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> As I said I hope to be upgrading to the latest version in the next >>>>> >> couple of months. Right now I need to get through this problem >>>>> >> the best I can. >>>>> > >>>>> > Known issue with 2.4.31. Solution is to upgrade and stop using the >>>>> > crap shipped by Debian. The LTB project now has a deb repository >>>>> > for their builds, I'd advise investigating switching to using it. >>> >>> A: >> One could also file a bug report for Debian, I guess. >>> >>> B: > Rubbish, have you ever seen a Debian or Ubuntu maintainer posting to >>>> this mailing list? >>> >>> C: > Actually there is no qualified Debian or Ubuntu maintainer. >>> >>> What has A to do with B, and how can you conclude C from A or B? >> >> B obviously has to do with A. A qualified maintainer would maintain some >> presence with the upstream project. >> >> C you can conclude from years of interacting with the Debian project, like I >> have. >> >> >> --Quanah >> >> >> -- >> >> Quanah Gibson-Mount >> Architect - Server >> Zimbra, Inc. >> -------------------- >> Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration >
