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

RE: Openlap and BDB updates: update question

  I've been messing about with Jehan's RPM builds of OpenLDAP 2.1.25 on my RHEL 
ES3 systems.  Jehan and I followed Red Hat's convention (from their OpenLDAP 
2.0 packages) of statically linking a complete separate build of the underlying 
db.  I'm actually pretty happy about doing it that way because at this point I 
want to be able to load any updates that Red Hat recommends (including any 
berkeley db updates) without changing the behaviour of the OpenLDAP software.  
And I want all my software to be RPM packaged so that other (possibly less 
skilled) people can do routine maintenance tasks such as security patches etc. 
without endangering the stability of the system.
  Yes, that does mean we'll have to amend the spec file, rebuild the binary 
rpms from the revised source rpms, and reload the binaries each time a 
desirable patch to either sleepycat or OpenLDAP comes out.  But since Nalin 
over at Red Hat has never answered my request to build current OpenLDAP rpms 
for official release... oh well.  I am still in a testing/exploring mode with 
this, but Jehan's packages have been running well for a week or so now on one 
of my test machines.

On 6 Feb 2004 at 13:56, Howard Chu wrote:

From:           	"Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com>
To:             	"'Tony Earnshaw'" <tonye@billy.demon.nl>,
  	"'Openldap list'" <openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org>
Subject:        	RE: Openlap and BDB updates: update question
Date sent:      	Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:56:57 -0800
Priority:       	non-urgent

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
> > [mailto:owner-openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Tony Earnshaw
> > Duty-bound details:
> >
> > OS: RH RHEL 3
> > BDB 4.2.52, both patches
> > Openldap 2.2.5
> >
> > I had BDB 4.2.52, with a single patch. Along comes a new patch. I do a
> > clean 'zcat db-4.2.52.NC.tar.gz | tar -xvf -', patch the source with
> > both patches, do a clean configure "--options", make, make install.
> > A.o.k., no problem.
> >
> > But, the question is: 'ldd' and 'strings' on the original 2.2.5 slapd
> > binary tells me that it has BDB linked as *static* libraries. So
> > presumably, my new BDB install doesn't count, as far as slapd is
> > concerned. I decide to recompile the whole of Openldap 2.2.5
> > again, run
> > 'make test' and 'make install' so as to include the new, static BDB
> > libraries. Costs time.
> >
> > Is this a correct assumption? Do I need to recompile slapd (and the
> > other associated server and client binaries and libraries)
> > after having
> > done a BDB update? To my mind I do.
> >
> > But it's not just Openldap: Other completely independent
> > services linked
> > with BDB have to be recompiled too. Hassle upon hassle.
> This post sounds to me like a general gripe about Berkeley DB. Somehow I
> don't think it belongs here. It may also be a gripe about program maintenance
> in general on a (specific?) Linux platform. Again, why is this here? Neither
> of these issues are factors under our control.
> If this were a general programming forum, I might mention that on platforms
> that support shared libraries, you can generally just rebuild/reinstall the
> individual shared library after applying a patch. This assumes that the patch
> doesn't change any visible aspects of the API. If any features of the API
> have changed (function signatures, data structure elements, etc.) then you
> must recompile all your dependent software as well. If your platform supports
> shared libraries but your dependent software linked it statically, you might
> investigate why the shared library was not used in a particular link.
> None of this is specific to OpenLDAP software, you should know all this
> already.
>   -- Howard Chu
>   Chief Architect, Symas Corp.       Director, Highland Sun
>   http://www.symas.com               http://highlandsun.com/hyc
>   Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support