On Thursday 2020-12-24 11:33, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
On 24 Dec 11:28 2020, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
On 24 Dec 11:05 2020, Arjen de Korte wrote:
Could it be I have missed an announcement that Berkeley DB support has to be removed from packages submitted to Factory? Or is there a mailinglist I failed to subscribe to where this was posted?
There is no such rule or discussion. There is some work underway to make it optional which comes from SLE side. So, nothing is being removed.
Btw so far I saw it's being replaced by lmdb, [...]
I like to think of it as "no, not really". A completely unscientific method grepping for BuildRequires shows: # timespan of about 6½ years Leap 13.2: db 56, lmdb 2, sqlite 66 Leap 42.1: db 54, lmdb 4, sqlite 65 Leap 15.1: db 47, lmdb 7, sqlite 73 Factory today: db 44, lmdb 13, sqlite 79 Which would suggest to me that the replacement is perhaps statistically random with no specific preference for lmdb. And rpm has been vocal about the lmdb shortcomings too. commit 7de982ac0957c42f228b43685d9f486e55eac331 Author: Panu Matilainen Date: Thu Mar 19 10:25:11 2020 +0200 Drop the experimental LMDB backend In the three years that LMDB support has been in the tree, and four since upstream promised 1.0.0 in a couple of months, there have been no upstream changes towards eliminating the key size limitations that we need. And in the meanwhile it has become clearer that LMDB is not the promised land it seemed on the outset, instead it has issues like requiring the database size to be pre-determined (#902). Drop support for LMDB, there's active development going on in the [rpm] area of database backends and we cannot afford to drag along an experimental backend that is blocked on upstream design limitations and shows no signs of moving forward. We can always bring it back if the upstream situation changes.