Hi Kurt, On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 07:31:52AM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: > >> At this point, I see little reason to revert (given the routines have > >> long been broken and hence deprecated). > > > >Even though that might be true, applications using it will break when > >libldap is upgraded, although they shouldn't as the SO name didn't > >change. > > yes, broken applications will break further. That depends on the definition of broken. For you the applications are broken anyway because they use super-secure feature foo which they shouldn't. But for the user upgrading OpenLDAP breaks a number of applications that used to work. This is bad luck for the administrator who will have a fun time to fix those applications by rebuilding them. I don't think they will blame those applications for breaking. This might be acceptable for you but please think of Linux distributors. At least for Debian it is absolutely unacceptable to have a number of packages break because you upgrade another package. The way it is installing libldap2 from OpenLDAP 2.1 will break some other packages. There are three solutions for us: a) Reintroduce the missing functions. b) Bump the soname. c) Have the new libldap2 package conflict with all packages that break. I don't like any of these solutions. (a) and (b) would essentially fork OpenLDAP in Debian and (c) is really tiresome work - 71 packages currently depend on libldap2 and I have no idea how much of them will break. Please consider doing either (a) or (b) as the upstream entity. If only to do us (the packagers) a favour and spare us a lot of work. Thanks Torsten (Debian OpenLDAP maintainer)
Attachment:
pgpyvwwTK9OE2.pgp
Description: PGP signature