Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is performance the only problem with 4.4 and 4.5 for OpenLDAP? If so, I > think the BDB maintainers would be well within their rights to ask for > removal of 4.2 from unstable anyway, even if 4.6 weren't on the horizon.
Note that going with a slower BDB probably isn't an acceptable solution for Stanford, which means that if Debian goes this direction, I'll have to keep maintaining a local fork of the packages, which means that I won't be testing the Debian packages in a production environment. Currently I have to do this anyway for other reasons, but I'm trying to reduce the divergence as much as I can, and currently once 2.4 is released there's no reason why I can't run the Debian packages directly. But going to a slower BDB is probably a non-option for us. This is *not* necessarily a good reason for Debian to make decisions; it's more feedback from someone who wants to use the Debian packages that this could be a deal-breaker in our willingness to use the packages in Debian verbatim. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
