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
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.