Re: Slaves taking up 100% cpu

[Tony Earnshaw <tonye@billy.demon.nl>]

tir, 20.01.2004 kl. 11.53 skrev Buchan Milne:

> Hmm, I would like to point out that this is not obvious. Previously,
> SuSE was criticised for shipping 2.1.22, but at the time SuSE 9 (and
> Mandrake 9.2 for that matter) shipped, 2.1.22 was shown on the openldap
> site as being the current stable release.

RedHat is also shipping 2.1.22 as the alternative to 2.0.27. As far as
Openldap and RedHat go, RedHat verges on the conservative. Catch 22:

There is *no* stable release of Openldap software. As soon as a release
has been proved as being stable, it is then judged (Quanah ;) as being
no longer supported (me, I'm an experimental person, so what the heck?
There's money to be earned on it).

Be that as is may, what the Openldap site *actually* (at the moment)
says is:

        The OpenLDAP Software Stable release is the last release which
        has proven through general use to be the most stable release
        available. OpenLDAP-2.1.25, as of 20031217, is considered
        stable.
        
Howard Chu has posted on this list, that 2.1.26 is on the boil,
presumably because of bugs in 2.1.25.

The Openldap project seems to render a product in constant development.
No single Internet service seems to have as many IETF rfcs devoted to
it, of which the number is constantly increasing, other than smtp
e-mail. Witness the constant stream of Postfix and Exim releases (forget
Qmail and Sendmail).

>  At present, 2.1.22 is still
> linked into ftp://ftp.openldap.org/pub/OpenLDAP/openldap-stable/ , and
> no patches are recommended.

See the above.

> For people who don't have the luxury of subscribing to *all* the mailing
> lists (which, for instance, may include the maintainers of the packages
> in Linux distributions), it is at present not very obvious that 2.1.22
> should not have been shipped (and whether it would be wise for
> distributors to ship an update to 2.1.25).

Let's take a ridiculous example, for comparison. Microsoft is said to
have an almost unlimited *paid* developers working for her, with a
staggering 7 billion US dollars budgeted for research and development.

When did you ever see a stable Microsoft release of *anything*? That's
how Microsoft earns its money. Why should Openldap be different? Apart
from paying an unlimited number of developers any staggering salary
thanks to an almost unlimited R&D budget, that is.

> It's all fine and well to criticise people distributing your software,
> but then it would be polite to ensure that it's easy for them to do the
> right thing in the limited time they have to maintain each package they
> work on.

How on earth is Openldap.org supposed to know who you are? Have you let
her know? If so, has she blown you a raspberry, given you the old
heave-ho, het gesê dit jy 'n verdraaide rooinek is?

> P.S. I am an occasional contributor to the Mandrake openldap packages
> and maintainer of a number of Mandrake packages.

So?

--Tonni

-- 
mail: billy - at - billy.demon.nl
http://www.billy.demon.nl