Ryan Tandy wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 06:33:47PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: >> I would like to see us retire slapd-bdb and slapd-hdb. > > How much work is it costing to keep them around? > > I agree completely with marking them deprecated and having configure disable > them by default, but I also don't see a lot of reason to actually delete them > as > long as they keep working without having to spend any effort. > > Is there any intermediate level in between deprecated and deleted? Demote to > contrib? > > For removing something like back-[bh]db or slapd.conf that was actually the > default in the past, and therefore probably still has many users who have just > carried working setups forward, I would personally be even more conservative: > announce the removal (not just the fact that it's deprecated, but that it will > be removed in a specific version e.g. 2.6), mention it in as many places as > possible (mailing list, admin guide, man pages), and include that notice in a > release a year or two in advance of the actual removal.
As Quanah said 2.5 release will likely take another year. So I think it's ok to really get rid of back-[bh]db. The migration to back-mdb is really easy. Keeping this old cruft and later telling people all the times not to use it would be a awful waste of developer resources. >> Another possibility is back-perl. > > back-shell? Its manpage advises building slapd without threading, but last I > looked, that doesn't even work any more. (Speaking of things that are broken > enough to be considered for deletion...) Yupp. And probably back-passwd. Ciao, Michael.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
