We are heavily utilising back-sql on our product. Granted it has its issues
but it does so far fulfill our needs. We are currently running on 2.4.58
which we build ourselves for Debian and RHEL/CentOS based systems. We
needed couple of patches to back-sql to make it work for us. I just created
issues (and added my patches) for them. I don't have a slightest idea if
the patches are of any use for you but they make our environments work.
Removing back-sql from future releases would make us stuck with 2.4 release.
--- Aapo Romu
--- Software Architect
--- Eficode Oy
On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 00:02, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)symas.com> wrote:
> --On Sunday, August 8, 2021 6:32 PM +0100 Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com>
> > Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> >> For 2.5, we deprecated:
> >> back-ndb
> >> back-sql
> >> back-perl
> >> Should these be removed for 2.6?
> > I still routinely build back-perl in master. Is there any reason to
> > remove it?
> Not necessarily, that's why I started the discussion. back-bdb was
> deprecated with 2.3, but was around for all of 2.4 as well. I see no
> reason to keep back-ndb around. back-sql has numerous open issues, but
> I've no real insight into whether it retains any usefulness.
> Quanah Gibson-Mount
> Product Architect
> Symas Corporation
> Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: