[gentoo-dev] db4

[gentoo-dev] db4

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1108 bytes --]

After the 1.4 release, I think it would be a good idea to make another
pass at making db4 the default in gentoo.  We're starting to get
packages such as the latest openldap that require db4.  The current
problem is that not all packages will build w/ db4 right now, but
emerging db4 will stomp some files from db1 and db3 (and vice versa),
from what I've seen.  We could employ slots and a set of /usr/lib/dbx
directories, but that's fairly intrusive.  Most packages do now build w/
db4 quite well, as it emulates db1 and db3 fairly nicely, or they can be
patched to do so, and I think that's the better long-term solution. 
Unfortunately, some packages still refuse to behave.  One example is
courier-imap, which currently requires either db3 or gdbm.  Debian's
solution for their db4-based unstable tree has been to just compile
courier-imap w/ gdbm.  Presumably, if we want to give users a choice
about the backend we could build db4 support in statically, but I don't
have a feeling for how much of a pain that would be.

Thoughts?
-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] db4

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1402 bytes --]

On Thursday 22 May 2003 23:31, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> After the 1.4 release, I think it would be a good idea to make another
> pass at making db4 the default in gentoo.  We're starting to get
> packages such as the latest openldap that require db4.  The current
> problem is that not all packages will build w/ db4 right now, but
> emerging db4 will stomp some files from db1 and db3 (and vice versa),
> from what I've seen.  We could employ slots and a set of /usr/lib/dbx
> directories, but that's fairly intrusive.  Most packages do now build w/
> db4 quite well, as it emulates db1 and db3 fairly nicely, or they can be
> patched to do so, and I think that's the better long-term solution.
> Unfortunately, some packages still refuse to behave.  One example is
> courier-imap, which currently requires either db3 or gdbm.  Debian's
> solution for their db4-based unstable tree has been to just compile
> courier-imap w/ gdbm.  Presumably, if we want to give users a choice
> about the backend we could build db4 support in statically, but I don't
> have a feeling for how much of a pain that would be.
>
> Thoughts?

Basically the binaries are bitten by this. I was thinking we could just rename 
them from db_archive to db4_archive  (where archive is just an example)

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.cs.kun.nl/~pauldv

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] db4

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2148 bytes --]

On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 05:31:57PM -0400, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> After the 1.4 release, I think it would be a good idea to make another
> pass at making db4 the default in gentoo.  We're starting to get
> packages such as the latest openldap that require db4. 

Yep, we definitely need to get db4 ready. I remember that there has been
repeated requests to add symbol versioning to db in order to eliminate
problems in allowing multiple db versions to co-exist. From an 23 April
email from pauldv:

> One thing I noticed when making the subversion ebuild is that gentoo doesn't
> use symbol versioned db libs. That means that different versions cannot
> co-exist. Making db3 versioned is a problem though as all dependencies need
> to be recompiled to use the versioned symbols (the others don't exist
> anymore in that case)       

And from pauldv's 05 May email:

> While investigating a subversion bug requesting a db4 compiled apache2 I
> found that the db4 ebuilds do not compile with --with-uniquename.  This
> option will make sure that different db versions have different symbol
> names. As such it allows different db versions to coexist.        

> But if we want to have such a db4 we need to do it fast as this option                    
> requires all packages that use db to be recompiled because of mismatching                 
> symbols. I'm though not the db maintainer so I propose here to enable this                
> option now with all (masked) db4 ebuilds      

I replied that I'd like this fixed, and Paul replied and said that he'd get
on it. It doesn't appear that this effort has been completed as the current
db in portage still uses non-versioned symbols.  We should get this done
before the 1.4 release so that new users don't have to worry about
recompiling all their db-based apps.

I just talked to Seemant on irc. He's going to get the right people working
on this so that we get some kind of good solution in place asap. Thanks in
advance to anyone who helps out in this effort.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins
Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] db4

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 935 bytes --]

On Saturday 24 May 2003 08:41, Daniel Robbins wrote:
>
> I replied that I'd like this fixed, and Paul replied and said that he'd get
> on it. It doesn't appear that this effort has been completed as the current
> db in portage still uses non-versioned symbols.  We should get this done
> before the 1.4 release so that new users don't have to worry about
> recompiling all their db-based apps.
>
> I just talked to Seemant on irc. He's going to get the right people working
> on this so that we get some kind of good solution in place asap. Thanks in
> advance to anyone who helps out in this effort.
>

Oops, I found that I forgot to commit the corrected versions.
Committing them now. Note that only db4 versions will have versioned symbols, 
as versioning db3 will create the same breakage as versioning db4 will.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] db4

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1475 bytes --]

On Saturday 24 May 2003 10:29, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Saturday 24 May 2003 08:41, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> > I replied that I'd like this fixed, and Paul replied and said that he'd
> > get on it. It doesn't appear that this effort has been completed as the
> > current db in portage still uses non-versioned symbols.  We should get
> > this done before the 1.4 release so that new users don't have to worry
> > about recompiling all their db-based apps.
> >
> > I just talked to Seemant on irc. He's going to get the right people
> > working on this so that we get some kind of good solution in place asap.
> > Thanks in advance to anyone who helps out in this effort.
>
> Oops, I found that I forgot to commit the corrected versions.
> Committing them now. Note that only db4 versions will have versioned
> symbols, as versioning db3 will create the same breakage as versioning db4
> will.

As a note to all people actually using db4. Compiling this new version WILL 
force you to recompile all db4/db dependent applications. As db4 is masked 
there is no clean upgrade path as yet.

To clarify the db3 breakage if it where versioned. Basically versioned symbols 
will give all db functions a name with a version in it. As this is hidden by 
db.h applications don't notice it, but the dynamic linker will and it will 
find unresolved symbols. 

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] db4

[Zach Welch]

Daniel Robbins wrote:
 > On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 05:31:57PM -0400, Grant Goodyear wrote:
 >
 >> After the 1.4 release, I think it would be a good idea to make
 >> another pass at making db4 the default in gentoo.  We're starting
 >> to get packages such as the latest openldap that require db4.
 >
 >
 > Yep, we definitely need to get db4 ready. I remember that there has
 > been repeated requests to add symbol versioning to db in order to
 > eliminate problems in allowing multiple db versions to co-exist. From
 >  an 23 April
[[ remaining portions trimmed ]]

For everyone's reference, the following is a short thread entitled
"db1/glibc debacle" that describes, in part, a couple of the
"historical" reasons for our current problems with db4 mirgration:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200208/msg00538.html

It may not help us solve the migration problems with db4, but it should
be an enlightening message for people that are not really familiar with
(or sympathetic to) the problems surrounding upgrades of this nature.

Cheers,

Zach Welch
Gentoo Developer
Superlucidity Services


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list