In looking at our FAQ, many entries detail ancient (2.1 and earlier) information that is completely obsolete. It would be nice to be able to archive off the cruft so that the site is actually of more use. Thoughts on how best to achieve this?
Some examples:
SLAPD (with LDBM database) prerequisites include suitable database support. One of following packages can fulfill the prerequisite.
Berkeley Database from Sleepycat (http://www.sleepycat.com/) GNU Database Manager (GDBM) from FSF (http://www.gnu.org/)
For OpenLDAP 2.1 (or later), Berkeley DB 4.1 is recommended. SLURPD prerequisites include:
Thread support (Posix Threads and others)
SSL/TLS prerequisites:
OpenSSL 0.9.6 from http://www.openssl.org
The OpenSSL library usually needs to be patched before it will work correctly. See this FAQ article for details: http://www.openldap.org/faq/index.cgi?file=185 (Note about OpenSSL and crypt())
(Answer) How do I select a suitable LDBM backend? (Answer) How do I force LDBM to use of BerkeleyDB? (Answer) How do I force LDBM to use of GDBM? (Answer) Can LDBM use NDBM?
etc.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
In looking at our FAQ, many entries detail ancient (2.1 and earlier) information that is completely obsolete. It would be nice to be able to archive off the cruft so that the site is actually of more use. Thoughts on how best to achieve this?
Do we really need this ancient stuff to be archived? Many snippets are not of such a good quality which would justify the effort needed to maintain an archive.
Ciao, Michael.
----- "Michael Ströder" michael@stroeder.com wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
In looking at our FAQ, many entries detail ancient (2.1 and
earlier)
information that is completely obsolete. It would be nice to be
able to
archive off the cruft so that the site is actually of more use. Thoughts on how best to achieve this?
Do we really need this ancient stuff to be archived? Many snippets are not of such a good quality which would justify the effort needed to maintain an archive.
Ciao, Michael.
It's not supported by the project I think, so should be just deleted.
--On Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:01 PM +0100 Gavin Henry ghenry@suretecsystems.com wrote:
----- "Michael Ströder" michael@stroeder.com wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
In looking at our FAQ, many entries detail ancient (2.1 and
earlier)
information that is completely obsolete. It would be nice to be
able to
archive off the cruft so that the site is actually of more use. Thoughts on how best to achieve this?
Do we really need this ancient stuff to be archived? Many snippets are not of such a good quality which would justify the effort needed to maintain an archive.
Ciao, Michael.
It's not supported by the project I think, so should be just deleted.
Anyone else have an opinion?
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
On 14/08/2009 17:44, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:01 PM +0100 Gavin Henry ghenry@suretecsystems.com wrote:
----- "Michael Ströder" michael@stroeder.com wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
In looking at our FAQ, many entries detail ancient (2.1 and
earlier)
information that is completely obsolete. It would be nice to be
able to
archive off the cruft so that the site is actually of more use. Thoughts on how best to achieve this?
Do we really need this ancient stuff to be archived? Many snippets are not of such a good quality which would justify the effort needed to maintain an archive.
Ciao, Michael.
It's not supported by the project I think, so should be just deleted.
Anyone else have an opinion?
Actually, I find this information useful once in a while, when having to debug ancient installations. There are still many out there, unfortunately... (and of course, I'm too "new" to know how things used to work before 2.2)
Maybe a category could be created, named "Historical", and all the old entries placed within?
Regards, Jonathan
Michael Ströder wrote:
Jonathan Clarke wrote:
Maybe a category could be created, named "Historical", and all the old entries placed within?
QAnd who is going to do the work doubling all the hierarchy under this archive node and maintaining it in the future?
I suppose, given that much of this obsolete data hasn't changed in a long time, and most of the pages are archived on the Wayback Machine,
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.openldap.org
we can just delete them. (Perhaps after first verifying that a Wayback copy already exists...)
On 15/08/2009 00:15, Howard Chu wrote:
Michael Ströder wrote:
Jonathan Clarke wrote:
Maybe a category could be created, named "Historical", and all the old entries placed within?
QAnd who is going to do the work doubling all the hierarchy under this archive node and maintaining it in the future?
Ha. Doubling the hierarchy does sound like a pain. I was thinking of a simple catch-all category.
Anyway, I am willing to do some sorting work (either to archive or delete), and have some free time ahead of me.
I suppose, given that much of this obsolete data hasn't changed in a long time, and most of the pages are archived on the Wayback Machine,
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.openldap.org
we can just delete them. (Perhaps after first verifying that a Wayback copy already exists...)
There is indeed a copy from January 2008 (well, or December 2007 according to the URL? either way, it contains the concerned questions):
http://web.archive.org/web/20071223164620/www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/1....
Regards, Jonathan
-
Gavin Henry -
Howard Chu -
Jonathan Clarke -
Michael Ströder -
Quanah Gibson-Mount