net/openldap24-server won't start after bdb5 upgrade

[Xin LI]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 09/25/11 14:59, John Marshall wrote:
> If net/openldap24-server is built WITH_BDB_VER=5, the server will
> fail to load the bdb backend at startup and will fail.
> 
> ---------------- @(#) $OpenLDAP: slapd 2.4.26 (Sep 26 2011
> 06:13:10) lt_dlopenext failed: (back_bdb) file not found config
> error processing cn=module{0},cn=config: <olcModuleLoad> handler
> exited with 1 slapd stopped. ----------------
> 
> This is because the port doesn't include the BDB backend in the
> build. The BDB backend is excluded from the build because the port
> doesn't recognize the new BDB version numbering now used in
> bsd.database.mk.
> 
> About a month ago I submitted a simple patch to work around this
> but I guess the maintainer has been too busy to look at it.  I just
> got bitten again with the recent bdb 5.2.28 --> 5.2.36 upgrade and
> thought I'd mention it here.
> 
> See ports/160270 for Makefile patch.

Oh actually I should have sent some email about this to BDB
maintainers but that never got sent (I've hit some issue that I can
not really solve without their help).  I've added them in Cc so maybe
they can chim in on this topic.

Basically the problem was I saw a drastic policy change beginning from
Berkeley DB 5.x and didn't know yet where we are going.  Long story
short, in the past we can specify specific version "47", "48" or
"least version" like "47+", or as compatibility shim (as I
understood), use "1" and "4" for "base system bdb 1.85" or "40" (which
is actually databases/db4).

By the way, beginning from databases/db5, older Berkeley DB versions,
like 5.0.x, 5.1.x, is no longer provided by ports collection.  This
might be because 5.2.x's file format is backward compatible?

If we have decided NOT to support 5.0.x and 5.1.x at all, and intend
to have only "BerkeleyDB 5.x", and future Berkeley DB releases, then
your patch might be good to have;

If, however, we still need to support older Berkeley 5.0.x and 5.1.x
series, I'd recommend that we deprecate using single digit version
numbers like "5" and use "52" or "50+" instead.  Using single digit
version numbers would require more logic in individual ports and is
doesn't seem a good idea...

Cheers,
- -- 
Xin LI <delphij at delphij.net>	https://www.delphij.net/
FreeBSD - The Power to Serve!		Live free or die
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJOgAvHAAoJEATO+BI/yjfBmR0H/iZ3KqEuRYM0k5ecck5v8dXJ
+RAKexu59aqkX/M9JKWuE/UFVRaYhD8qNtqC4Z4Hqxe22VR6TLVyBWqJVkA7KjFv
8QhrinfGG6SH1o/D1VfZjDQhnNzDqMnzbuj0zkjjIJc0u6+73UUA7+RMPnBWOyDF
qjSVOvKxsdTkMxEi/1RF1FGhNYFfnx7O9tGzvRu8RIERUwAn0Ec9Z8FX1gMmM3lA
1W0TPYCp92ey0MbYTvJibpzBt54IDG/ze2aOaSc82AG5tQ++CYcEeoO1fPq3ZB3v
a+H2QAtSzsN+PBoc9fkJ6hGLmLVIk8cyNXYnaNinmtLQsbwZeLv7oIqcyV0Sf7Y=
=2QEQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----