>> Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)symas.com> schrieb am
25.07.2019 um 16:31 in
--On Thursday, July 25, 2019 12:12 PM +0200 Ondřej Kuzník
>> What I don't like is the strong focus on one (LMDB) database backend,
>> despite of all the stupid things Oracle does.
> There are big issues with the two BerkeleyDB backends for many
> installations so it had to be abandoned. I'll let Howard or Quanah take
> this part of the discussion further should they choose to.
> Unfortunately, no other backend is in shape to be useable as a main
> database in production.
BerkeleyDB 6 and later are not license compatible with OpenLDAP. Thus one
of the "stupid" things Oracle did is ensure the removal of the back-bdb and
back-hdb backends from OpenLDAP as well as BerkeleyDB from numerous
pieces of software. It has already been noted that back-bdb/hdb are
deprecated and that the supported primary database backend going forward
from that point was back-mdb.
But if the license is the only problem, users still could use an older version
("last good") of BDB. To me I always had the impression that you want to push
MDB, not because it's better, but because it's yours. Personally I think users
should be able to decide which database they prefer.
Ironically many users are using Oracle databases, because some software
vendors don't leave customers a choice...
More to the point, as this email is discussing OpenLDAP 2.5, there will be
no back-bdb/hdb after OpenLDAP 2.4. They've already been removed from
openldap-master. One thing there that would be helpful is ensuring that
all references to them have been removed from the documentation in master.
Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP: