Re: [blfs-support] Revert Berkeley DB to v5
On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 10:38:34AM -0400, scrat wrote: > > > On 08/04/2018 06:13 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: > > [putolin] > > > > > As I understand it, downloading from Oracle requires registration, > > even for db-5. That's why we're using a secondary site for 18.1.25. > > This works for me using wget with a file of packages to download: > http://download.oracle.com/berkeley-db/db-6.0.20.tar.gz > > Never signed on or registered > Thanks. I had tried downloading from firefox and got asked to register (I stopped at that point). ĸen -- Entropy not found, thump keyboard to continue -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Revert Berkeley DB to v5
On 08/04/2018 06:13 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: [putolin] Many packages were already moving away from Berkeley at the time of the license change. For us, the problem with using 18.1.25 (and later 19, 20 if we keep going) is "what changed which might impact the packages using this ?" The big distros have enough users for problems to be noticed and fixes prepared. We don't. As I understand it, downloading from Oracle requires registration, even for db-5. That's why we're using a secondary site for 18.1.25. This works for me using wget with a file of packages to download: http://download.oracle.com/berkeley-db/db-6.0.20.tar.gz Never signed on or registered -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Revert Berkeley DB to v5
On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 03:44:26PM -0400, Michael Shell wrote: > > > > I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or another, but my vote is to > retain the latest version. Oracle is using a GPL license (AGPL) so > redistribution (i.e. a lack of distribution sites) should not be an issue. > The LWN article expressing concern about the AGPL was written in 2013. > > Given the way things work with the FSF, many other projects will eventually > be affected by the AGPL issue anyway. (If the FSF wants all source > code/modifications to be publicly available for all GPL/free software that > has been modified and that provides, or is linked to that which provides, > public web services, then it will evolve the GPL as needed to achieve that > goal world wide.) > Using the AGPL for web applications appears to be fine, but using it for a library - particularly when the copyright owner is perceived as litigious - gives people who have web applications pause for thought and it seems to contribute to the reluctance for other linux distros to use recent versions. In addition, php does not officially support DB > 5 and openldap say that the licence of DB 6+ is incompatible with their package (but using DB 5 for slapd is merely 'deprecated'). Not that I care about either package per se, the problem is keeping track of possible breakage if something internal changes. > Furthermore, recent versions of packages tend to have fewer problems with > recent compilers. > Hmm, not wholly my experience ;) We mostly use released versions and often changes in a library (icu, poppler are particular bug-bears of mine) will eventually be fixed upstream by the packages that use them - but often several months / versions later. For the last db-5 there is one problem, probably caused by changes in gcc's default c++ standard - Arch have a patch, we can use a sed. And in general fedora are good for bleeding-edge fixes - but in this case they aren't using DB-6 let alone DB-18. > If there were to arise a significant fork or alternative with regard to the > Berkeley DB, or we could not download it from any site without registering > with Oracle, or if we knew that db-18.1.25 or later broke a significant > number things, then I could see some solid grounds for reverting to an > older version or even to an alternate db. > Many packages were already moving away from Berkeley at the time of the license change. For us, the problem with using 18.1.25 (and later 19, 20 if we keep going) is "what changed which might impact the packages using this ?" The big distros have enough users for problems to be noticed and fixes prepared. We don't. As I understand it, downloading from Oracle requires registration, even for db-5. That's why we're using a secondary site for 18.1.25. > In short, I think that keeping with the most recent version of packages is > the way to go to *reduce* maintenence and patch issues (by avoiding the > "code rot" problem) over the long term. > > > Just my $0.02, > > Mike Shell > Thanks for the comments. At the moment I'm still planning to drop it into an experimental build in about a week's time. All being well (unlikely - I plan to test latest icu and poppler, so some breakage is likely in other packages) I'll then minimally build the packages from the systemd book which use it - 'minimally' here means "fiddle about with options to avoid some of the recommended deps, and possibly determine that some are now required". But db-5 is a known quantity in linux, I don't foresee issues with any package which uses it. ĸen -- Entropy not found, thump keyboard to continue -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Revert Berkeley DB to v5
I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or another, but my vote is to retain the latest version. Oracle is using a GPL license (AGPL) so redistribution (i.e. a lack of distribution sites) should not be an issue. The LWN article expressing concern about the AGPL was written in 2013. Given the way things work with the FSF, many other projects will eventually be affected by the AGPL issue anyway. (If the FSF wants all source code/modifications to be publicly available for all GPL/free software that has been modified and that provides, or is linked to that which provides, public web services, then it will evolve the GPL as needed to achieve that goal world wide.) Furthermore, recent versions of packages tend to have fewer problems with recent compilers. If there were to arise a significant fork or alternative with regard to the Berkeley DB, or we could not download it from any site without registering with Oracle, or if we knew that db-18.1.25 or later broke a significant number things, then I could see some solid grounds for reverting to an older version or even to an alternate db. In short, I think that keeping with the most recent version of packages is the way to go to *reduce* maintenence and patch issues (by avoiding the "code rot" problem) over the long term. Just my $0.02, Mike Shell -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Revert Berkeley DB to v5
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 04:15:27PM -0400, scrat wrote: > > On 08/03/2018 01:59 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: > > I've now raised ticket > > http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/10989#ticket > > for this. I documented the reasons on -dev in > > http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/10989#ticket > > but since most users don't read -dev I'll mention it here too. > > > > AFAICS, use of DB version 5 is a known and expected situation, so > > the details of what changed internally in a given version do not > > need to concern us (unlike any possible changes from v6 to v18). > > So, once it builds (Arch apply a patch) it should just drop in and > > reduce our maintenance. > > > > But maybe I'm missing something, or perhaps people think that > > reverting to an old stable version is generally undesirable. If so, > > this is your chance to speak up. > > > > NB - I'm already overdrawn on the time I'm committing to BLFS. All > > being well, I'll look at this on my *next* build (that will be > > several days away) where I plan to experimentally try newer versions > > of some packages to see if htey cause problems. > > > > ĸen > > I build rpm with Berkeley DB version 6.0.20. and have not had an issues for > 2 years. > I do not use the Arch linux patch, it builds straight up for me. > What was the issue with version 6? The apparent issue is with building version _5_ on current systems. -- Entropy not found, thump keyboard to continue -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-support] Revert Berkeley DB to v5
On 08/03/2018 01:59 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: I've now raised ticket http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/10989#ticket for this. I documented the reasons on -dev in http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/10989#ticket but since most users don't read -dev I'll mention it here too. AFAICS, use of DB version 5 is a known and expected situation, so the details of what changed internally in a given version do not need to concern us (unlike any possible changes from v6 to v18). So, once it builds (Arch apply a patch) it should just drop in and reduce our maintenance. But maybe I'm missing something, or perhaps people think that reverting to an old stable version is generally undesirable. If so, this is your chance to speak up. NB - I'm already overdrawn on the time I'm committing to BLFS. All being well, I'll look at this on my *next* build (that will be several days away) where I plan to experimentally try newer versions of some packages to see if htey cause problems. ĸen I build rpm with Berkeley DB version 6.0.20. and have not had an issues for 2 years. I do not use the Arch linux patch, it builds straight up for me. What was the issue with version 6? -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
