Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 07:18:04 +0100 From: Konstantin Saurbier <saurbier@math.uni-bielefeld.de> To: Dave Horsfall <daveh@ci.com.au> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OpenLDAP maintenance Message-ID: <20060201061804.GB73757@fuji11.math.uni-bielefeld.de> In-Reply-To: <20060201170022.F27764@mippet.ci.com.au> References: <20060201161328.L27764@mippet.ci.com.au> <20060201055604.GA73757@fuji11.math.uni-bielefeld.de> <20060201170022.F27764@mippet.ci.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--9zSXsLTf0vkW971A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dave Horsfall wrote on Wed Feb 01, 2006 um 05:03:45PM: > On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Konstantin Saurbier wrote: Regarding your opinion of openldap22-* we should set the port deprecated and on the same time set an expiration date e.g. 3 months from now on. Using this, all users of openldap22 get the chance to upgrade to 2.3 without suddenly removing the port out of the blue. > > > The OpenLDAP developers themselves recommend that DB 4.2.52 be used,= =20 > > > not 4.3.29. > >=20 > > From the 2.3.19 release Readme: > >=20 > > "BDB and HDB backends require Sleepycat Berkeley DB 4.2 or later" this > > includes BDB 4.3.29. >=20 > Please see: >=20 > http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200506/msg00370.html >=20 > The situation has not changed. Also note that 4.4 is out, and it=20 > definitely is not recommended yet. Thanks i haven't noticed this discussion. As far as i can see 4.3 is not usable but maybe the port should provide a method to use it while 4.2=20 stays as the standard option.=20 It seems that 4.2.52 is also not the best situation but is stable enough with different official and more or less unofficial patches. In short, 4.2 should be the default while it should be possible to use 4.3, 4.1 or even 4.4. > > > And yes, I'm happy to support it if noone else will... > >=20 > > Feel free to submit a PR and ask for taking maintainership within this = PR. >=20 > OK. You don't have to submit the PR or take maintainership and I'm absolutely willing to do both. Whoever takes maintainership and whateve is done, this situation needs a fast and reliable solution. Sorry if my last mail sounded a bit harsh to you. --=20 Best regards, Konstantin Saurbier ------------------------------------------------------ Konstantin Saurbier Tel.: 0521 106 3861 Computerlabor Mathematik U5-138 Universitaet Bielefeld Universitaetsstr.25 33501 Bielefeld email: saurbier@math.uni-bielefeld.de ------------------------------------------------------ --9zSXsLTf0vkW971A Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFD4FKcWkvQTx5k+y4RAmu9AJ9DPpV4octxI+Nj5Sq1A82i9N9u8gCePE4J EeD9Vp8iMI7oS3R/1y832N4= =0Xrk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9zSXsLTf0vkW971A--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060201061804.GB73757>