On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 08:50:29 +0100 Paul Gevers wrote:
> > Remove Berkeley DB (finally)
>
> Sure. But I agree with several readers of this bug that there should
> be a plan. We shouldn't kill it until the users are able to sanely
> move away from it. I doubt that will happen automatically, so
> so
On Feb 04, Paul Gevers wrote:
> I don't see the preparation happening in time for bookworm, so if the
> preparations are done for trixie, Berkeley DB can be removed in forky.
I object again to removing Berkeley DB: it is mature software and it
works fine.
At least inn2 uses it, and a "transition
Hi,
As a Release Team member, I'm leave a small note here.
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 18:12:17 +0200 Bastian Blank wrote:
I would like to propose a release goal:
It has been a while since we did release goals in the formal way. I
recommend instead to discuss this in a bigger audience and get tract
Apache httpd allows to use DBM file for various purposes. The default
format is Berkeley DB. This is highly configuration dependent, automatic
migration by maintainer scripts seems unfeasible. This means that the
users need time and a tool to migrate their configurations. I have
opened [1] for
X-Debbugs-Cc: b...@debian.org
Hi,
cyrus-sasl2 package maintainer here. I am interested in the state of this since BerkeleyDB will be removed from sasl
upstream with the next release [0]. There are several other implementations to choose from: gdbm|lmdb|ndbm. ndbm does
not exist in Debian and g
Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Then there's user code too. I also think we'll need at least a dumper
>> utility so that users can migrate their data manually when they discover
>> their program no longer works after upgrading.
>
> For Python, the dbm/ndbm.py module, based on the _dbm extension is also
>
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:36:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 16, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
> > postfix is easy. Would inn2 be license compliant with a AGPL licensed
> > BDB, aka able to provide the source to it's users, or what is the plan
> > anyway?
> The plan is to continue using 5.3,
On 5/5/21 8:51 PM, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 08:29:52PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 05:04:03PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
>>> And then all the packages currently depending on libdb5.3 will need to
>>> implement, or at least document, a transition stra
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 08:29:52PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 05:04:03PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > And then all the packages currently depending on libdb5.3 will need to
> > implement, or at least document, a transition strategy.
>
> My first goal would be to drop
Thanks for your explanation.
Gerardo
Il giorno ven 16 apr 2021 alle ore 20:09 Bastian Blank
ha scritto:
>
> Hi Gerardo
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:30:08AM +0200, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> > Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > Berkeley DB was relicensed to AGPLv3 almost eight years ago.
> > Sorry but I
On Apr 16, Bastian Blank wrote:
> postfix is easy. Would inn2 be license compliant with a AGPL licensed
> BDB, aka able to provide the source to it's users, or what is the plan
> anyway?
The plan is to continue using 5.3, not upgrading.
> slapd defaults to LMDB since several years and you need
Hi Marco
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 05:04:03PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 15, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > After this time we really should try to get rid of this package, which
> > even is NMU maintained since three years.
> I am not persuaded. I maintain libberkeleydb-perl and it works fine,
Hi Gerardo
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:30:08AM +0200, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Berkeley DB was relicensed to AGPLv3 almost eight years ago.
> Sorry but I don't understand, why is that a problem?
> I believe the AGPL (you mean the GNU Affero General Public License,
> right?
On Apr 15, Bastian Blank wrote:
> After this time we really should try to get rid of this package, which
> even is NMU maintained since three years.
I am not persuaded. I maintain libberkeleydb-perl and it works fine, it
is mature software.
But even if we agree that all the libdb5.3 reverse dep
Bastian Blank wrote:
> Berkeley DB was relicensed to AGPLv3 almost eight years ago.
Sorry but I don't understand, why is that a problem?
I believe the AGPL (you mean the GNU Affero General Public License,
right?) is a free license. Is it not?
Gerardo
Hi,
On 15.04.21 18:12, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Hi
>
> I would like to propose a release goal:
>
> Remove Berkeley DB (finally)
>
> Berkeley DB was relicensed to AGPLv3 almost eight years ago. Since
> then, Debian stayed with the last version
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: wishlist
Hi
I would like to propose a release goal:
Remove Berkeley DB (finally)
Berkeley DB was relicensed to AGPLv3 almost eight years ago. Since
then, Debian stayed with the last version before the license change.
The license change means, we can't take
17 matches
Mail list logo
