[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: openldap-2.1.16: what happened to cache.c?

Hi Kurt, 

On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 07:31:52AM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> >> At this point, I see little reason to revert (given the routines have
> >> long been broken and hence deprecated).
> >
> >Even though that might be true, applications using it will break when
> >libldap is upgraded, although they shouldn't as the SO name didn't
> >change. 
> yes, broken applications will break further.

That depends on the definition of broken. For you the applications are 
broken anyway because they use super-secure feature foo which they 
shouldn't. But for the user upgrading OpenLDAP breaks a number of
applications that used to work.  This is bad luck for the administrator
who will have a fun time to fix those applications by rebuilding them. I
don't think they will blame those applications for breaking. 

This might be acceptable for you but please think of Linux distributors. 
At least for Debian it is absolutely unacceptable to have a number
of packages break because you upgrade another package. The way it is
installing libldap2 from OpenLDAP 2.1 will break some other packages. 
There are three solutions for us:

a) Reintroduce the missing functions.
b) Bump the soname.
c) Have the new libldap2 package conflict with all packages that break.

I don't like any of these solutions. (a) and (b) would essentially fork
OpenLDAP in Debian and (c) is really tiresome work - 71 packages
currently depend on libldap2 and I have no idea how much of
them will break.

Please consider doing either (a) or (b) as the upstream entity. If only 
to do us (the packagers) a favour and spare us a lot of work.


	Torsten (Debian OpenLDAP maintainer)

Attachment: pgpyvwwTK9OE2.pgp
Description: PGP signature