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:
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.
.On 12/16/2011 09:26 AM, Mark R Bannister wrote:
If this isn't fixed now, in Fedora, then it's likely to cause more pain when it finally reaches RHEL.
Fedora does not have any bearing on what downstream distribution based on Fedora be it Red Hat or something else do.
So even in the unlikely event the project decide to carry a patch for this and go against our upstream mantra downstream distributions of Fedora might just as well decide to drop that patch to be better in line with what upstream is doing.
I would gestimate that F18+ will become RHEL7 which will give you a full year to adapt your system to those changes ( a year or so ) and at the same time I would recommend if you are in position to do so to re-evaluating the use of those Solaris in your infrastructure.
If you cant prepare your infrastructure for these changes and you cant convince upstream then RHEL6 will be supported for years to come.
We took a hard look at what benefits we had continuing to use Solaris in our infrastructure when Oracle bought Sun and we came to the conclusion we gained absolutely nothing ( it has zfs and dtrace which arguable are the only benefit it brings over GNU/Linux ) and in the long run it would only hurt us continuing to use it in our infrastructure so we decided to drop the use of Solaris altogether ( Having to rely running critical system on operating system that has uncertain future at best and risks vendor lock in with cost that is associated with that not that good..).
Unfortunately in that process we stopped buying Sun hardware as well which I personally was fond of and cant do nothing but praise it's reliability thou others might disagree in that regard as is the general story with all HW.
JBG
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Mark R Bannister mark@proseconsulting.co.uk wrote:
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.
Mark,
I've contacted the glibc maintainer in Fedora, who is swamped with work right now, but he's agreed to look over your proposal as quickly as he can. If for some reason he doesn't respond on the list here, I'll forward along anything I hear directly from him.
-- Jared Smith Fedora Project Leader