Bug#651700: [Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#651700: Bug#651700: slapd: BDB library version mismatch
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: Under the circumstances that seems a perfectly reasonable behavior for upstream to implement, but in Debian we hold libraries to a higher standard. If the library *does* change its ABI, the package name in Debian will change even if upstream fails to handle this, so the check within OpenLDAP is redundant; and in cases where Oracle releases a patchlevel release that doesn't change the ABI, this actively works against the packaging system. Note that ABI in this context has to encompass the on-disk format as well, which I suspect Steve meant but which is worth saying explicitly, since my guess would be that's where OpenLDAP ran into problems in the past that caused this check to be added. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#651700: [Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#651700: Bug#651700: slapd: BDB library version mismatch
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 05:46:14PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: Under the circumstances that seems a perfectly reasonable behavior for upstream to implement, but in Debian we hold libraries to a higher standard. If the library *does* change its ABI, the package name in Debian will change even if upstream fails to handle this, so the check within OpenLDAP is redundant; and in cases where Oracle releases a patchlevel release that doesn't change the ABI, this actively works against the packaging system. Note that ABI in this context has to encompass the on-disk format as well, which I suspect Steve meant but which is worth saying explicitly, since my guess would be that's where OpenLDAP ran into problems in the past that caused this check to be added. Right, I tried to make this clear in the patch description: OpenLDAP upstream conservatively assumes that any change to the version number of libdb can result in an API-breaking change that could impact the database. [...] Do you think that's sufficient, or should I clarify this further? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#651700: [Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#651700: Bug#651700: slapd: BDB library version mismatch
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes: On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 05:46:14PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Note that ABI in this context has to encompass the on-disk format as well, which I suspect Steve meant but which is worth saying explicitly, since my guess would be that's where OpenLDAP ran into problems in the past that caused this check to be added. Right, I tried to make this clear in the patch description: OpenLDAP upstream conservatively assumes that any change to the version number of libdb can result in an API-breaking change that could impact the database. [...] Do you think that's sufficient, or should I clarify this further? No, I think that's fine. I'm just a little worried that we'll get bitten by some future libdb change, but actually OpenLDAP may serve as an excellent canary there. If libdb changes either the file format or the ABI in a way that isn't compatible without changing the SONAME, that's an RC bug in libdb from Debian's perspective and it's something we'd rather know about than not, since we need to fix it regardless of OpenLDAP's use of the package. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#651700: [Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#651700: Bug#651700: slapd: BDB library version mismatch
--On Wednesday, January 04, 2012 6:01 PM -0800 Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: Do you think that's sufficient, or should I clarify this further? No, I think that's fine. I'm just a little worried that we'll get bitten by some future libdb change, but actually OpenLDAP may serve as an excellent canary there. If libdb changes either the file format or the ABI in a way that isn't compatible without changing the SONAME, that's an RC bug in libdb from Debian's perspective and it's something we'd rather know about than not, since we need to fix it regardless of OpenLDAP's use of the package. Personally, I'm hoping Debian will dump back-bdb/back-hdb entirely once back-mdb is stable. ;) --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Sr. Member of Technical Staff Zimbra, Inc A Division of VMware, Inc. Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#651700: [Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#651700: Bug#651700: slapd: BDB library version mismatch
Quanah Gibson-Mount qua...@zimbra.com writes: Personally, I'm hoping Debian will dump back-bdb/back-hdb entirely once back-mdb is stable. ;) Yeah, mdb is looking really nice, and it would be lovely to stop having to worry about BerkeleyDB weirdness. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
