[Date Prev][Date Next]
Antw: Re: OpenLDAP 2.5 plans and community engagement
>>> Quanah Gibson-Mount <firstname.lastname@example.org> schrieb am 25.07.2019 um 16:31 in
> --On Thursday, July 25, 2019 12:12 PM +0200 Ondřej Kuzník
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> What I don't like is the strong focus on one (LMDB) database backend,
>>> despite of all the stupid things Oracle does.
>> There are big issues with the two BerkeleyDB backends for many
>> installations so it had to be abandoned. I'll let Howard or Quanah take
>> this part of the discussion further should they choose to.
>> Unfortunately, no other backend is in shape to be useable as a main
>> database in production.
> BerkeleyDB 6 and later are not license compatible with OpenLDAP. Thus one
> of the "stupid" things Oracle did is ensure the removal of the back-bdb and
> back-hdb backends from OpenLDAP as well as BerkeleyDB from numerous other
> pieces of software. It has already been noted that back-bdb/hdb are
> deprecated and that the supported primary database backend going forward
> from that point was back-mdb.
But if the license is the only problem, users still could use an older version
("last good") of BDB. To me I always had the impression that you want to push
MDB, not because it's better, but because it's yours. Personally I think users
should be able to decide which database they prefer.
Ironically many users are using Oracle databases, because some software
vendors don't leave customers a choice...
> More to the point, as this email is discussing OpenLDAP 2.5, there will be
> no back-bdb/hdb after OpenLDAP 2.4. They've already been removed from
> openldap-master. One thing there that would be helpful is ensuring that
> all references to them have been removed from the documentation in master.
> Quanah Gibson-Mount
> Product Architect
> Symas Corporation
> Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: