--On Saturday, September 26, 2015 8:11 PM +0200 Michael Ströder <michael(a)stroeder.com&gt; wrote: > HI! > > I wonder what's considered best practice for building OpenLDAP and lmdb > packages e.g. for a Linux distribution. > > Fortunately lmdb seems to be leveraged by more and more other > software. So > Linux distributions start to ship lmdb libs and tools as separate > packages. > > 1. Do I have a chance to build OpenLDAP against those packages? Which > releases have to be aligned? > > 2. Or should I link back-mdb statically into slapd when producing > OpenLDAP > packages? This would probably also require to build separate version of > the mdb tools. OpenLDAP should only ever be statically linked to the version of liblmdb it ships with. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Platform Architect Zimbra, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

Hi, +1 Statically link is a bad idea in this case, IMHO.

Le 26/09/2015 20:39, Quanah Gibson-Mount a écrit : > --On Saturday, September 26, 2015 8:11 PM +0200 Michael Ströder > <michael(a)stroeder.com&gt; wrote: > >> HI! >> >> I wonder what's considered best practice for building OpenLDAP and lmdb >> packages e.g. for a Linux distribution. >> >> Fortunately lmdb seems to be leveraged by more and more other >> software. So >> Linux distributions start to ship lmdb libs and tools as separate >> packages. >> >> 1. Do I have a chance to build OpenLDAP against those packages? Which >> releases have to be aligned? >> >> 2. Or should I link back-mdb statically into slapd when producing >> OpenLDAP >> packages? This would probably also require to build separate version of >> the mdb tools. > > OpenLDAP should only ever be statically linked to the version of liblmdb > it ships with.

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 22:07:21 +0100, Howard Chu wrote: > OpenLDAP source code is released as a single unit. This situation is > no different than building slapd itself against libldap_r. If you > split things apart and mix versions, you can potentially break them. Would it be possible to install the mdb_* tools by default with a standard OpenLDAP build/install, so they don't have to be built and packaged separately either?

OpenLDAP source code is released as a single unit. This situation is no different than building slapd itself against libldap_r. If you split things apart and mix versions, you can potentially break them.

--On Monday, September 28, 2015 10:26 AM +0200 Michael Ströder <michael(a)stroeder.com&gt; wrote: > Hmm, in the long run I'd like to see a single liblmdb being installed > with the accompanying tools system-wide just like the BDB libs/tools. I > understand that this would limit the freedom of developing/shipping an > OpenLDAP-specific "fork" in the OpenLDAP sources. Can't say I've necessarily seen that done with BDB either... Like RHEL and debian tend to have multiple bdb versions available, with the tools named things like db42_dump etc, so that the version specific utilities can be used. On the LMDB side, we're missing things like libtool versioning that would allow this to be more easily possible. Also, having it so 0.9.x is backwards compatible with 0.9.y, y < x, would make things a bit easier to deal with as well. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Platform Architect Zimbra, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration