Re: libldap vs libldap_r ?

[Florian Weimer]

* Howard Chu:

> Michael Ströder wrote:
>> On 3/18/19 5:15 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
>>> I noticed that OpenSSL 1.1 now has an explicit dependency on
>>> Pthreads. Which means that now
>>> even our "non-threaded" libldap, when built with OpenSSL, must
>>> actually be linked with the
>>> threads library. In this age of multicore processors, is it really
>>> important to have a single-threaded
>>> LDAP library any more? Should we just make libldap_r become the
>>> standard library?
>> 
>> Mainstream Linux distributions started to remove libldap anyway.
>> So +1 to abandon it.
>
> I would probably keep "libldap" as the canonical name. We can
> completely drop the "libldap_r" name or just keep it as a symlink
> for a while, removing it after a year or so.

Hasn't everyone who ships a single library standardized on libldap_r?

Fedora wants to unify libldap and libdap_r as well, and my guidance
was to use a soname with libldap_r, too.

When was the last soname bump for libldap_r?  Around 2008?  Dropping
the symbolic link would result in an unncessary (at this point) soname
bump.

(Note that the symbolic links are important for glibc at least: the
dynamic loader will only load one copy of the library and treat the
other names as aliases.)

Re: libldap vs libldap_r ?

[Ryan Tandy]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 05:31:34PM +, Howard Chu wrote:

I would probably keep "libldap" as the canonical name.


++

We can completely drop the "libldap_r" name or just keep it as a 
symlink for a while, removing it after a year or so.


I'd maybe make that "after a release or so" i.e. if "libldap" becomes 
canonical starting from 2.5, don't drop the symlink at least until 2.6. 

Re: libldap vs libldap_r ?

[Howard Chu]

Michael Ströder wrote:
> On 3/18/19 5:15 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
>> I noticed that OpenSSL 1.1 now has an explicit dependency on Pthreads. Which 
>> means that now
>> even our "non-threaded" libldap, when built with OpenSSL, must actually be 
>> linked with the
>> threads library. In this age of multicore processors, is it really important 
>> to have a single-threaded
>> LDAP library any more? Should we just make libldap_r become the standard 
>> library?
> 
> Mainstream Linux distributions started to remove libldap anyway.
> So +1 to abandon it.

I would probably keep "libldap" as the canonical name. We can completely drop 
the "libldap_r" name
or just keep it as a symlink for a while, removing it after a year or so.

-- 
  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.   http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/

Re: libldap vs libldap_r ?

[Michael Ströder]

On 3/18/19 5:15 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
> I noticed that OpenSSL 1.1 now has an explicit dependency on Pthreads. Which 
> means that now
> even our "non-threaded" libldap, when built with OpenSSL, must actually be 
> linked with the
> threads library. In this age of multicore processors, is it really important 
> to have a single-threaded
> LDAP library any more? Should we just make libldap_r become the standard 
> library?

Mainstream Linux distributions started to remove libldap anyway.
So +1 to abandon it.

Ciao, Michael.

Re: libldap vs libldap_r ?

[Doug Leavitt]

On 3/18/19 11:23 AM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Monday, March 18, 2019 5:15 PM + Howard Chu  
wrote:



I noticed that OpenSSL 1.1 now has an explicit dependency on Pthreads.
Which means that now even our "non-threaded" libldap, when built with
OpenSSL, must actually be linked with the threads library. In this 
age of

multicore processors, is it really important to have a single-threaded
LDAP library any more? Should we just make libldap_r become the standard
library?


Using libldap_r as the standard library has been the default with many 
downstream linux distributions for years, so I think that's reasonable 
(and well tested at this point).


--Quanah

Similarly with Solaris, when we started shipping OpenLDAP as the 
supported libldap in our distribution, we have only ever shipped the 
libldap_r library.  All of our libldap.*s files are just symlinks. As I 
recall, we started doing this back with the 2.4.30 release.


Doug.

Re: libldap vs libldap_r ?

[Quanah Gibson-Mount]

--On Monday, March 18, 2019 5:15 PM + Howard Chu  wrote:


I noticed that OpenSSL 1.1 now has an explicit dependency on Pthreads.
Which means that now even our "non-threaded" libldap, when built with
OpenSSL, must actually be linked with the threads library. In this age of
multicore processors, is it really important to have a single-threaded
LDAP library any more? Should we just make libldap_r become the standard
library?


Using libldap_r as the standard library has been the default with many 
downstream linux distributions for years, so I think that's reasonable (and 
well tested at this point).


--Quanah



--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Product Architect
Symas Corporation
Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP:

libldap vs libldap_r ?

[Howard Chu]

I noticed that OpenSSL 1.1 now has an explicit dependency on Pthreads. Which 
means that now
even our "non-threaded" libldap, when built with OpenSSL, must actually be 
linked with the
threads library. In this age of multicore processors, is it really important to 
have a single-threaded
LDAP library any more? Should we just make libldap_r become the standard 
library?

-- 
  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.   http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/