Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Hi Quanah, On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:58:01PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > You can find the patch for adding "-q" to slapadd on OpenLDAP 2.2 here: > > Great, thanks! Applied it to the subversion

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Quanah, > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:39:09PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: >> > Is there a way to enforce this without editing DB_CONFIG? I'd rather set >> > an environment variable or something like that. Writing that into >> > DB_CONFIG in

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Hi Quanah, On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:39:09PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > > Is there a way to enforce this without editing DB_CONFIG? I'd rather set > > an environment variable or something like that. Writing that into > > DB_CONFIG in the maintainer scripts always poses the risk that it'

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Why? (technical reasons, please). Not that I am assuming there is enough >> evidence to downgrade anything but OpenLDAP just yet, but your reply seems >> to imply that even if there were, you would still not downgrade. > If there were anything besides FU

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If there were anything besides FUD, I'd consider it on its own merits, > but all I've seen thus far is an anecdote that OpenLDAP has trouble with > some version of db4.3 on some platform because of some undescribed flaw > related to the log format change.

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

> Only now I would trust BDB 4.2 with any mission critical data... but then, I > am the one which still builds Cyrus 2.1 against BDB 3.2 for stability (Cyrus > 2.2 will be built against BDB 4.2). IIRC, BDB 3.3 addresses very serious problems in 3.2, but we can't have 3.3 in Debian without a painfu

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Clint Adams wrote: > some version of db4.3 on some platform because of some undescribed flaw > related to the log format change. There does not appear to be a report > in the Debian BTS about this problem. Hmm... my experience with BDB 4.x tells me we should be quite a bit pa

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Of course, I don't mean downgrading the libdb4.3 packages :-) Those > would just get a grave bug until the issue is fixed (assuming there > is one, which is not clear at this point). Before even bothering to continue this thread, whoever cl

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

> Why? (technical reasons, please). Not that I am assuming there is enough > evidence to downgrade anything but OpenLDAP just yet, but your reply seems > to imply that even if there were, you would still not downgrade. If there were anything besides FUD, I'd consider it on its own merits, but all

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Clint Adams wrote: > > Should we notify the maintainers to better go back to 4.2 for sarge? > > Don't bother notifying me; I won't be switching anything back to 4.2. Why? (technical reasons, please). Not that I am assuming there is enough evidence to downgrade anything but Op

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

> Should we notify the maintainers to better go back to 4.2 for sarge? Don't bother notifying me; I won't be switching anything back to 4.2. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Quanah, > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:59:03PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: >> The patches for BDB 4.2.52 are freely available from Sleepycat. They are >> required to be in place if you want a stable BDB 4.2.52 distribution. I >> would be v

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > Should we notify the maintainers to better go back to 4.2 for sarge? I think so. Jumping into a new BDB version like it was done for 4.3 is *always* foolhardy at best, IMHO. But it would be a very good idea to track down some other opinions about

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:10:23AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > In short, I cannot find a single reason to run OpenLDAP against BDB 4.3, > > and even the current OpenLDAP release notes that BDB 4.2 is required. I > > can find many reasons to not use BDB 4.3. > > Not good. That

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Hi Quanah, On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:59:03PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > The patches for BDB 4.2.52 are freely available from Sleepycat. They are > required to be in place if you want a stable BDB 4.2.52 distribution. I > would be very surprised if the package maintainer hadn't already

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

On Thursday 17 March 2005 02:59, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > > That's for sure but I want to be able to do automatic upgrades for the > > simple cases. And at least help the admin by dumping the directory > > before starting the upgrade and taking care of the old database files in > > case he deci

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: >> The patches for BDB 4.2.52 are freely available from Sleepycat. They are >> required to be in place if you want a stable BDB 4.2.52 distribution. I >> would be very surprised if the packa

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > The patches for BDB 4.2.52 are freely available from Sleepycat. They are > required to be in place if you want a stable BDB 4.2.52 distribution. I > would be very surprised if the package maintainer hadn't already included > the patches in their b

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Some issues to consider for the 2.1 to 2.2 process: >> >> 1) OpenLDAP 2.1 generally used BDB 4.1. OpenLDAP 2.2 should only be used >> with BDB 4.2.52+patches when using bdb or hdb as the backend (Ignore the >> documentation with OpenLDAP 2.2.23

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

* Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: [...] > You do *not* want to run OpenLDAP against BDB 4.3. Releasing Debian > with its OpenLDAP compiled against BDB 4.3 would be a serious > mistake. You forgot to explain _why_ OpenLDAP compiled against BDB 4.3 should be a serious mistake. Norbert -- To UNSUBSCRI

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Hi Quanah, On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:07:29PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > I currently maintain Stanford University's directory service, which is > based on OpenLDAP. I also am a member of the OpenLDAP core team, and I > hold down another job with Symas Corporation doing a variety of ta

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 05:04:26PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > >> The first. Basically upstream changes the database format quite often. > >> I am even not entirely sure if the database format stays compatible in > >> the 2.1 or 2.2 line but I'd expect it to. The 2.2.23 Debian packages > >>

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The first. Basically upstream changes the database format quite often. >> I am even not entirely sure if the database format stays compatible in >> the 2.1 or 2.2 line but I'd expect it to. The 2.2.23 Debian packages >> uses libdb4.3 instead of libdb4.2 a

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

hey, On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:02:23PM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > As far as I can see your are mostly targetting packages /using/ a > database? Good work so far looking at your text. The few database using > packages I tried to install did not work as good as I'd have expected... this is

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi there, Hi Torsten, First to introduce myself: I currently maintain Stanford University's directory service, which is based on OpenLDAP. I also am a member of the OpenLDAP core team, and I hold down another job with Symas Corporation doing a v

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Hi Sean, On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:14:39PM -0500, sean finney wrote: > much of what you're trying to do touches a similar vein to a project > i'm currently working on[1]. while unfortunately i haven't built in As far as I can see your are mostly targetting packages /using/ a database? Good wor

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > the ldif format was not a problem? was the syntax parsed > correctly from 2.1 to 2.2? LDIF is rfc described... there shouldn't be any issue using the LDIF output. The main issue is possibly stripping the entryCSN for the use of syncrepl. However, s

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:31:01PM +, Dave Holland wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:36:17AM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > > As you might have noticed or not we are working on getting OpenLDAP 2.2 > > into unstable. The packages are mostly working fine (as available in > > experimental)

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:36:17AM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote: >> a) the preinst checks if the database format has changed between the old >> version and the version that we are upgrading to > is this an underlying database format change, or simply

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:36:17AM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > As you might have noticed or not we are working on getting OpenLDAP 2.2 > into unstable. The packages are mostly working fine (as available in > experimental) but what is missing is a really tested upgrade path from > OpenLDAP 2.

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

> ad b) where is that .ldif file to be saved? For small directories not an > issue (take /var/backups or something). For big directories it should be > on a different disk than /var/lib/ldap with enough space to get sensible > performance. I think that people who are running large directories shou

Re: [RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

hi torsten, much of what you're trying to do touches a similar vein to a project i'm currently working on[1]. while unfortunately i haven't built in any support for ldap (only mysql/pgsql), the topics, concepts, and practices are directly relevant to your situation and i'd recommend reading throu

[RFC] OpenLDAP automatic upgrade

Hi there, As you might have noticed or not we are working on getting OpenLDAP 2.2 into unstable. The packages are mostly working fine (as available in experimental) but what is missing is a really tested upgrade path from OpenLDAP 2.0 (in stable) and 2.1 (in testing, unstable). My proposal how i