FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-01-2011, 12:15 PM
Andreas Schwab
 
Default nss_db

glibc now includes libnss_db again, so the nss_db package is no longer
needed from f16 onward.

Andreas.

--
Andreas Schwab, schwab@redhat.com
GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E
"And now for something completely different."
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-01-2011, 12:15 PM
Andreas Schwab
 
Default nss_db

glibc now includes libnss_db again, so the nss_db package is no longer
needed from f16 onward.

Andreas.

--
Andreas Schwab, schwab@redhat.com
GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E
"And now for something completely different."
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-01-2011, 02:10 PM
Nalin Dahyabhai
 
Default nss_db

On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 02:15:21PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> glibc now includes libnss_db again, so the nss_db package is no longer
> needed from f16 onward.

Okay, I've updated git, pkgdb, and comps, and filed a ticket with
release engineering to block the builds from the compose.

Thanks,

Nalin
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-14-2011, 12:16 PM
Mark R Bannister
 
Default nss_db

I note from this posting:

http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-July/153665.html

And this one:

http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=2666d441c2d8107b1987b86971 4189af64b954c6

that the nss_db package has been deprecated, and that the new nss_db support in
glibc no longer uses Berkeley DB format.

This is a pity. I have a genuine requirement for Berkeley DB support.
Specifically, I need both Linux and Solaris clients using the same database file
presented over NFS. This is used for overriding UIDs, home directories and GIDs
on a per-NIS domain basis where multiple NIS domains have been imported into a
single Active Directory domain. We use the 'db' source in /etc/nsswitch.conf
ahead of 'ldap' so that users with clashing IDs can be successfully renumbered
when they log into different NIS domains.

Berkeley databases are architecture-independent, so all Linux and Solaris clients
can use the same db files. Moreover, I have forked the original version 2.2
nss_db with all the latest patches I could find and ported to Solaris at the URL
below. This version compiles ok on both Solaris 10 and RHEL 5.5 (no reason why
it shouldn't continue to compile on all versions of Linux that it previously did):

http://sf.net/projects/nssdb

Full details about this port can be found in this posting:

http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-help/2011-12/msg00001.html

By moving away from a Berkeley DB format, we're left in a position where Fedora
(and in the future RHEL) will not be compatible out-of-the-box with our NSS
database files. This will force us to use the nss_db fork above on RHEL7 in the
future, to maintain compatibility. This would be a shame, unless Red Hat
supported the above module.

Perhaps there is a better solution here? Can the nss_db fork above be included
as an option in Fedora? Perhaps you can simply rename the module to something
other than libnss_db so that it doesn't clash with the new glibc module.
Although personally I wish that glibc renamed their version so that libnss_db
continues to be compatible with Berkeley DB, I'm not sure why it was considered
ok to break backwards compatibility and force users of nss_db to recreate their
databases to a format that was no longer cross-platform.

Opinions? Ideas?

Best regards,
Mark.


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-14-2011, 12:44 PM
"Jared K. Smith"
 
Default nss_db

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Mark R Bannister
<mark@proseconsulting.co.uk> wrote:
> I note from this posting:
>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-July/153665.html
>
> And this one:
>
> http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=2666d441c2d8107b1987b86971 4189af64b954c6
>
> that the nss_db package has been deprecated, and that the new nss_db support in
> glibc no longer uses Berkeley DB format.

I appreciate your concerns, but unfortunately most of the glibc
development decisions happen in the upstream glibc community, and we
in Fedora don't always have a lot of pull when it comes to those sorts
of decisions. Have you expressed your concerns directly to the glibc
community?

--
Jared Smith
Fedora Project Leader
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-14-2011, 01:48 PM
Przemek Klosowski
 
Default nss_db

On 12/14/2011 08:44 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:


I appreciate your concerns, but unfortunately most of the glibc
development decisions happen in the upstream glibc community, and we
in Fedora don't always have a lot of pull when it comes to those sorts
of decisions.


That reminds me that you were talking to the glibc upstream about their
sometimes cavalier attitude to significant changes. How did that go? Did
you get a sense that they understood where we're coming from?

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-14-2011, 02:02 PM
"Jared K. Smith"
 
Default nss_db

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Przemek Klosowski
<przemek.klosowski@nist.gov> wrote:
> That reminds me that you were talking to the glibc upstream about their
> sometimes cavalier attitude to significant changes. How did that go? Did you
> get a sense that they understood where we're coming from?

My discussion with the glibc maintainers was purely a technical one --
centered specifically around the practices and procedures of doing
development in rawhide and not making invasive changes on released
branches. As a result of my conversations, we now have a new glibc
package maintainer in Fedora (Jeff Law), who sees eye-to-eye with me
on the need to not make invasive changes in packages on released
branches. I consider that a very good thing, and we've already
started to see the benefits of not re-syncing glibc with upstream head
every time we push out a new package. The "doing development in
rawhide" piece hasn't fully come about yet, but I'll be continuing my
discussions around that piece of the puzzle.

But to go back to the heart of your question -- my discussions with
upstream did *not* center on attitudes. It focused on best practices
for effective and efficient development. And in that regard, I think
we've got as strong of a trust relationship between Fedora and the
glibc packager as I've seen in a long time.

--
Jared Smith
Fedora Project Leader
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-14-2011, 02:36 PM
Mark R Bannister
 
Default nss_db

On Wed 14/12/11 13:44 , "Jared K. Smith" jsmith@fedoraproject.org sent:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Mark R Bannister <mark@proseconsulting.co.uk>
wrote:
> I note from this posting:
> >
> > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-July/153665.html>
> >
> > And this one:
> >
> >
http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=2666d441c2d8107b1987b86971 4189af64b954c6
> >
> > that the nss_db package has been deprecated, and that the new nss_db support in
> > glibc no longer uses Berkeley DB format.
>
> I appreciate your concerns, but unfortunately most of the glibc
> development decisions happen in the upstream glibc community, and we
> in Fedora don't always have a lot of pull when it comes to those sorts
> of decisions. Have you expressed your concerns directly to the glibc
> community?

I have now:

http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-help/2011-12/msg00002.html

The more I think about this, the more I think it's a bad idea.

Best regards,
Mark.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-14-2011, 08:08 PM
Josh Boyer
 
Default nss_db

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Mark R Bannister <mark@proseconsulting.co.uk>
>> > that the nss_db package has been deprecated, and that the new nss_db support in
>> > glibc no longer uses Berkeley DB format.
>>
>> I appreciate your concerns, but unfortunately most of the glibc
>> development decisions happen in the upstream glibc community, and we
>> in Fedora don't always have a lot of pull when it comes to those sorts
>> of decisions. *Have you expressed your concerns directly to the glibc
>> community?
>
> I have now:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-help/2011-12/msg00002.html

You might want to resend that to the libc-alpha list. Development
discussions take place there, and the upstream maintainers don't read
libc-help all that often.

josh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-16-2011, 08:26 AM
Mark R Bannister
 
Default nss_db

On Wed 14/12/11 21:08 , Josh Boyer jwboyer@gmail.com sent:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Mark R Bannister <mark at proseconsulting.co.uk>
>>> > that the nss_db package has been deprecated, and that the new nss_db support in
>>> > glibc no longer uses Berkeley DB format.
>>>
>>> I appreciate your concerns, but unfortunately most of the glibc
>>> development decisions happen in the upstream glibc community, and we
>>> in Fedora don't always have a lot of pull when it comes to those sorts
>>> of decisions. Have you expressed your concerns directly to the glibc
>>> community?
>>
>> I have now:
>>
>> http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-help/2011-12/msg00002.html
>
> You might want to resend that to the libc-alpha list. Development
> discussions take place there, and the upstream maintainers don't read
> libc-help all that often.
>
> josh

Thanks Josh, I've done that now too:

http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2011-12/msg00036.html

But I think in Fedora perhaps you should consider the repercussions of this
change yourselves, and try to deal with the compatibility issues it raises. For
a start, perhaps you should reverse the decision to deprecate your separate
nss_db package, and continue to package nss_db separately using source from
http://sf.net/projects/nssdb.

If this isn't fixed now, in Fedora, then it's likely to cause more pain when it
finally reaches RHEL. I personally don't think that the glibc maintainers are
going to pay much attention to this (although I admit I might be wrong on that
account, perhaps I'm just impatient but I've had no acknowledgement from them yet
on the subject).

Best regards,
Mark.


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:19 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org