Re: Openlap and BDB updates: update question

[Ace Suares <ace@suares.nl>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Hi All,

Mr. Chu wrote:
> Something on your build environment has changed between your two builds.

This is what I gather AFTER posting to te mailinglist.

However, I assure you, I haven't changed a thing. I don't even know how to.

> This is has nothing to do with anything under our control; 

Do users of openldap expect you to 'control' things ?

I think users of openldap want to share experience, learn, and in generally 
get the job done. I am under the impression that that's what this list is 
for.

Why are you so fed up with questions from users ?


> the OpenLDAP
> build procedures in 2.1 and 2.2 are mostly unchanged and on a frozen build
> system, produce nearly identical results:

So, on YOUR system it does what it's supposed to do. On mine and Tony's, it 
doesn't. Stop bitching about how stupid we are. Start thinking what could be 
the problem. Or divert your time to problems that you can understand...

Why do you need to shun us ? What's the benefit in that, for Symas 
Incorporated, or for you personally ? 

What I am trying to say is, that a simple message stating that you do not have 
these problems, and that these problems are not supposed to happen, would be 
enough. I feel there is no need to publcly look down on users of openLDAP.

> ~/r21obj/servers/slapd> ldd slapd

Thanks for that evidence. That was really the only part that users needed.

>
> As Kurt already tried to point out on a previous posting to this list, if
> you want to make effective use of the software and the resources available
> to you, you have to pay attention to where the boundaries lie. If you have
> a problem with any piece of code that is not part of the OpenLDAP source
> distribution, then it's not under our control. Go to the people who
> actually are responsible for that chunk of software.

That is too easy said. I would never dream of downloading and compiling BDB if 
it weren't for openLDAP. BDB is, from the users point of view, an integral 
part of openLDAP. See the many discussions about ldbm vs bdb before.

Maybe the users have a wrong view - I can't argue with that, but nevertheless, 
that's how most people will see it.

Every user that asks about back-xxx gets the advice to use back-bdb (and I am 
sure soon users will be adviced to use back-hdb).

Users are NOT holding you or any developer resonsible for their problems. But 
users want to know what went wrong. If something went wrong with compling 
openldap (like statically linking bdb) where's the first place I go ? 
To THIS list. Because it happened when compiling openldap. Not when compiling 
bdb!

> If something changes
> in Cyrus SASL, it's the responsibility of the Cyrus team to publicize that
> change. Likewise for Sleepycat and Berkeley DB.

Right. But YOU are using the latest bdb, and WE are using the latest bdb.
Still, we have a difference.


> When you raise Cyrus / BDB
> / whatever issues here, that only fragments the discussion and reduces the
> value of both the Cyrus / BDB / etc. support forum along with this forum,
> because it makes the real answers harder to find. When people understand
> that all of their Cyrus answers will always be in the Cyrus forums, not
> scattered willy-nilly across eighteen different other forums, they'll have
> a better chance of actually finding their answer and solving their problem.

True, but you first have to know WHAT's the problem.

Is my recent problem with ipv6 a problem of ipv6, SuSE, libtool, make, ls, or 
openldap ? I discovered it only when using openldap. I didn't change any 
thing with ipv6. I didn't even know it was enabeld. On top of that, it's an 
intermittent problem.

So I go to the openLDAP list. Does that make sense ?

> When you see a "sudden" change in the code characteristics, you have to
> take into account all the other possible changes that have occurred between
> your "point A" and "point B" and these are things that you as a system
> administrator are personally responsible for. 

Maybe the openldap developers forgot to mention that something changed ? Is 
that such an unlikely option ? You're logic is cyclic.

> It's not our job to tell you
> or keep track for you "oh by the way, make sure the file permissions allow
> the program to execute" or "oh make sure you have enough disk space and
> memory" or "make sure your kernel has the latest patch" - these issues are
> implicit in software/system management and are for you to take care of
> yourself.

Silly.
Why would my kernel need patching for compiling openldap ?
I mean, if openldap doesn't work on anything pre 2.7, I need to read that 
clearly in the openldap docs. If nothing is mentioned about kernels, I do NOT 
expect that I need 'the latest kernel patch'.

To me, it looks like you didn't have a good laugh when you read BOFH, but took 
it as serious advice :-(

>
>   -- Howard Chu
>   OpenLDAP Core Team

- -- 
Ace Suares' Internet Consultancy Core Team
NIEUW ADRES: Postbus 2599, 4800 CN Breda
telefoon: 06-244 33 608
fax en voicemail: 0848-707 705
website: http://www.suares.nl * http://www.qwikzite.nl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAJNMty7boE8xtIjURAjblAJ48vh6bvduXMV7O5nDrrmJlDfaWbACfaq+q
FS/3K3WRHQUNtKTU8eGvvCs=
=irQU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----