Re: substring index oddity

[Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>]

--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 3:22 PM -0500 John Madden 
<jmadden@ivytech.edu> wrote:

> > > I'm trying to stick with the .deb's for ease of maintenance, so I'll
> > > have to work around this another way.
> >
> > If you like, I can give you a list of reasons as to why this is a poor
> > decision. :)
> >
> > But only if you ask. :P
>
> It can only hurt a little, right?

Debian's deb's can hurt a lot.  Because they don't keep up with patches, so 
you get stuck dealing with known problems that have often been fixed in 
later releases.  Right now, Debian is 5 releases behind.  I've discussed 
things with their package maintainer, and they simply don't have enough 
knowledge to properly maintain the OpenLDAP package to any degree of 
usefulness.

> My reasons for not wanting to deal with custom compiles:
>
> - If I'm compiling from source, heck, why not compile libdb from source
> too?  And why not throw in the custom patches while we're at it?

I agree, why not? I do. :P  But this isn't necessarily an argument for 
compiling from source.  It is an argument against using Debian's packaged 
releases since they are inadequate.  There are other packages of OpenLDAP 
that keep current.


> - I've got 2.0.x installs (ldbm at that) running still now because they
> can't be taken down for upgrades.  Going from 2.0 to 2.1 or 2.2 is risky,
> yet updates and such (security, grave bugs) aren't maintained for 2.0.
> The vendor handles that for me.  ...I trust Debian.

That sounds more like you need to come up with a new process that allows 
you to upgrade servers as necessary.  I can't imagine not being able to 
upgrade my production LDAP servers any time I need to make an important fix 
to them...

--Quanah

--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Developer
ITSS/Shared Services
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html