Re: Antw: Re: OpenLDAP 2.5 plans and community engagement

>>> Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)symas.com&gt; schrieb am 25.07.2019 um 16:31 in Nachricht <2537EDE10877E990D54B64FF(a)[192.168.1.39]&gt;: > --On Thursday, July 25, 2019 12:12 PM +0200 Ondřej Kuzník > <ondra(a)mistotebe.net&gt; wrote: > >>> 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 other > 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.