Aapo Romu wrote:
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.
back-sql has been without an official maintainer for quite a long time. Are you
to keep it maintained from this point forward?
--- Aapo Romu
--- Software Architect
--- Eficode Oy
On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 00:02, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)symas.com
--On Sunday, August 8, 2021 6:32 PM +0100 Howard Chu <hyc(a)symas.com
> Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>> For 2.5, we deprecated:
>> 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.
Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP:
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/