Hi Scott, On 1/26/18 7:05 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:59:06 PM Lionel Debroux wrote: > > > > [...] > > --- > > Do you think we should start the journey of getting rid of libdb5.3 > > at a wide scale ? And if so, how to optimize resource usage in > > general ? :) > > --- > > Ultimately BDB is a dead end for non-AGPL projects. So my answer to > your first question is a definite yes. > > I'd like to know what the preferred replacement is. I maintain a few > less heavily used packages that use libdb5.3 and I need to know what > to tell upstream they should port to. I don't know enough to have a > real technical opinion. Is lmdb the general solution? In some (most ?) cases, it would seem so, indeed. But there's now a wider variety of key/value databases (even those which don't fork and communicate through *nix or network sockets) than, say, a decade ago. I remember that several years ago, bitcoind/bitcoin-qt switched from BDB to LevelDB.
> As far as postfix goes (which I also co-maintain) that is a two > release cycle project (it's complicated, but upgrades don't work > otherwise - if anyone cares see what we did for postfix-sqlite. It's > no problem to switch to a difference default map type, but it'd be > nice if we could switch it once to something that was otherwise > already likely to be installed. liblmdb* or libleveldb* are much less popular in popcon by_inst than libdb, yeah... Do we know whether LMDB, and other candidate databases for replacing BDB, have received suitable hardening against data corruption and fuzzing ? Bye, Lionel.
