Re: dbmmanage
On 06/07/2016 08:31 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > >> >>> 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. > > I don't know that its controversial, but we do want reality reflected in > the docs. > > To clarify, are you saying that this was just a RHEL/Fedora change, or > do you know if it's more widespread than that? Trying to find a > Debian/Ubuntu machine to verify ... ok, Ubuntu does have dbmmanage, so perhaps we just need to have the docs note that it's not available on all platforms, etc. Now, I just need to figure out how to reproduce the the `import` functionality without dbmmanage. Thanks for the info, Joe. --Rich -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: dbmmanage
On 06/07/2016 08:21 AM, Joe Orton wrote: > 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=137148193030744=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. I don't know that its controversial, but we do want reality reflected in the docs. To clarify, are you saying that this was just a RHEL/Fedora change, or do you know if it's more widespread than that? Trying to find a Debian/Ubuntu machine to verify ... -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: dbmmanage
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=137148193030744=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
Re: dbmmanage
On 06/07/2016 06:39 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > In troubleshooting something with dbmmanage, I came across this: > > http://marc.info/?l=fedora-extras-commits=137148193030744=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? > > 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. Hmm. I take that back. httxt2dbm doesn't handle this case - it's for files formatted for rewritemap. So converting text password files to dbm isn't something we have a (simple) solution for other than dbmmanage. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
