BTW, has anyone over the history of the "well-known" broken Red Hat RPMs raised bug reports etc. and had any response? I'm not sure what effort has been put into this and whether it's worth picking it up again?
As most users first experience of OpenLDAP is via the RH and Fedora RPMs, I think some effort (if it's not a waste of time again) should be put into trying to raise our concerns, as it harms the project in the long run.
Currently we have SuSE, Mandriva and Debian guys on the lists who care (you all know who you are ;-) ).
Anyone from Red Hat or Fedora here?
Thanks.
Gavin Henry skrev, on 21-02-2008 11:00:
BTW, has anyone over the history of the "well-known" broken Red Hat RPMs raised bug reports etc. and had any response? I'm not sure what effort has been put into this and whether it's worth picking it up again?
I've been using Red Hat since 7.2 and OpenLDAP since RHEL3 (OL 2.0.27 with ldbm). Because I wanted much more info and support than Red Hat could give I joined the OL ML; that would have been in early 2003. As far as Red Hat support is concerned I've never used it for anything - I'm not the one in the firm who decided for Red Hat, though I did and do still second the choice after trying SuSE and Mandrake (lately Debian Sarge and Etch too). Red Hat has good general documentation and comes near up to the SYSV Unix I'd been using (UnixWare, Irix, Solaris) in philosophy.
Already then the list deprecated ldbm and the current OL version was 2.1.
As most users first experience of OpenLDAP is via the RH and Fedora RPMs, I think some effort (if it's not a waste of time again) should be put into trying to raise our concerns, as it harms the project in the long run.
Diverse OL ML contributors have been slaying Red Hat's OL offerings since I joined, including me. I once got a rise from a Red Hat lurker when I attacked the policy of charging US$ 15,000 per server for OL. Red Hat's people lurk on the OL list (and doubtless on this one) but rarely utter.
Red Hat has a vested interest in supplying useless OpenLDAP products, since RH has acquired Netscape Directory for lots of money and supports this too at US$ 17,000 (so I've read) per master server, much less for slaves. Although it's made this into an open source project, it obviously has a near monopoly as far as support goes.
The problem for both Red Hat and Fedora in keeping up with OL development is that new OL versions are released much more frequently than the distro release policies allow. Further, the OL development team is such a small and tightly knit team of experts, that I personally doubt that Red Hat has developers who would be technically competent to work with them - let alone get along with them on a personal level.
Currently we have SuSE, Mandriva and Debian guys on the lists who care (you all know who you are ;-) ).
To my mind Mandrake has found the right level with Cooker, which Red Hat (through its distro policy) can't possibly emulate. As for Fedora, I see that the current FC8 (stable) OL release is 2.3.38, and db4 is 4.6.21, so that's OK, BUT there's no way those two could be incorporated into RHEL5 (for example) without doing what Buchan does. And by the time RHEL6 comes along (2009? May 2009 will be 2 years after RHEL5 was released), possibly based on FC8 or FC9, OL 2.3 will be a dead duck and people will all be using OL 2.4.
Anyone from Red Hat or Fedora here?
As I wrote, I'd guess at 100% certainty, but you'll be lucky to get a peep.
Best,
--Tonni
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Tony Earnshaw tonni@hetnet.nl wrote:
Gavin Henry skrev, on 21-02-2008 11:00:
BTW, has anyone over the history of the "well-known" broken Red Hat RPMs raised bug reports etc. and had any response? I'm not sure what effort has been put into this and whether it's worth picking it up again?
I've been using Red Hat since 7.2 and OpenLDAP since RHEL3 (OL 2.0.27 with ldbm). Because I wanted much more info and support than Red Hat could give I joined the OL ML; that would have been in early 2003. As far as Red Hat support is concerned I've never used it for anything - I'm not the one in the firm who decided for Red Hat, though I did and do still second the choice after trying SuSE and Mandrake (lately Debian Sarge and Etch too). Red Hat has good general documentation and comes near up to the SYSV Unix I'd been using (UnixWare, Irix, Solaris) in philosophy.
Already then the list deprecated ldbm and the current OL version was 2.1.
As most users first experience of OpenLDAP is via the RH and Fedora RPMs, I think some effort (if it's not a waste of time again) should be put into trying to raise our concerns, as it harms the project in the long run.
Diverse OL ML contributors have been slaying Red Hat's OL offerings since I joined, including me. I once got a rise from a Red Hat lurker when I attacked the policy of charging US$ 15,000 per server for OL. Red Hat's people lurk on the OL list (and doubtless on this one) but rarely utter.
Red Hat has a vested interest in supplying useless OpenLDAP products, since RH has acquired Netscape Directory for lots of money and supports this too at US$ 17,000 (so I've read) per master server, much less for slaves. Although it's made this into an open source project, it obviously has a near monopoly as far as support goes.
If I were a RH, SuSE, Mandriva, whatever, customer who paid thousands of dollars for the product and were having specific issues with their supported packages, I would open support requests. It's that simple. I don't care about their agenda, or whether they bought some other product or not. It's in the contract.
Now, some customers (most?) might not want to run the so called "latest stable version" of any given software if things are working just fine for them (luck, or they just don't use the broken feature). So RH does has to think about the bigger picture. I suppose, however, that they could provide special build packages outside of the main distro channels.
--On Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:10 PM +0100 Tony Earnshaw tonni@hetnet.nl wrote:
To my mind Mandrake has found the right level with Cooker, which Red Hat (through its distro policy) can't possibly emulate. As for Fedora, I see that the current FC8 (stable) OL release is 2.3.38, and db4 is 4.6.21, so that's OK,
I can't see how that would possibly be okay, given that OpenLDAP 2.3 does not support BDB 4.6 at all. Did you verify what version of BDB openldap is linked against on FC8?
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 10:00 +0000, Gavin Henry wrote:
BTW, has anyone over the history of the "well-known" broken Red Hat RPMs raised bug reports etc. and had any response? I'm not sure what effort has been put into this and whether it's worth picking it up again?
I really do think this is worth picking up.
As most users first experience of OpenLDAP is via the RH and Fedora RPMs, I think some effort (if it's not a waste of time again) should be put into trying to raise our concerns, as it harms the project in the long run.
Currently we have SuSE, Mandriva and Debian guys on the lists who care (you all know who you are ;-) ).
Anyone from Red Hat or Fedora here?
One thing I would mention is that Fedora is now a much more open project than it has been in the past. I'm sure some upstream co-maintainers would be very welcome, to the benefit of all parties.
Andrew Bartlett
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 10:21 -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:10 PM +0100 Tony Earnshaw tonni@hetnet.nl wrote:
To my mind Mandrake has found the right level with Cooker, which Red Hat (through its distro policy) can't possibly emulate. As for Fedora, I see that the current FC8 (stable) OL release is 2.3.38, and db4 is 4.6.21, so that's OK,
I can't see how that would possibly be okay, given that OpenLDAP 2.3 does not support BDB 4.6 at all. Did you verify what version of BDB openldap is linked against on FC8?
ldd shows:
libslapd_db-4.4.so => /usr/lib64/libslapd_db-4.4.so (0x00002aaaab4e3000)
Andrew Bartlett
--On Friday, February 22, 2008 8:10 AM +1100 Andrew Bartlett abartlet@samba.org wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 10:21 -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:10 PM +0100 Tony Earnshaw tonni@hetnet.nl wrote:
To my mind Mandrake has found the right level with Cooker, which Red Hat (through its distro policy) can't possibly emulate. As for Fedora, I see that the current FC8 (stable) OL release is 2.3.38, and db4 is 4.6.21, so that's OK,
I can't see how that would possibly be okay, given that OpenLDAP 2.3 does not support BDB 4.6 at all. Did you verify what version of BDB openldap is linked against on FC8?
ldd shows:
libslapd_db-4.4.so => /usr/lib64/libslapd_db-4.4.so (0x00002aaaab4e3000)
Okay, that sounds much more reasonable. :)
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
openldap-technical@openldap.org
-
Andreas Hasenack -
Andrew Bartlett -
Gavin Henry -
Quanah Gibson-Mount -
Tony Earnshaw