RPM Community Forums

Mailing List Message of <rpm-users>

Re: RPM sqlite3 support

From: Jeffrey Johnson <n3npq@me.com>
Date: Wed 13 Jan 2016 - 08:52:49 CET
Message-id: <64928736-FCBF-4158-AF11-4CFF94EB1B0B@me.com>

> On Jan 12, 2016, at 6:39 PM, Tim Mooney <Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu> wrote:
> In regard to: Re: RPM sqlite3 support, Jeffrey Johnson said (at 4:40pm on...:
>>> With Oracle's license change on BDB 6.x (or 12.x, or whatever they're
>>> calling it) to AGPL, does that impact rpm5's long-term use of BDB?
>> No impact for the project, but there’s always users who want/need different.
>> BDB been doing the job for RPM (and many many other projects) since forever.
>> There’s little engineering reason to change.
> Agreed, but then outside factors override a lot of technology design
> decisions in software design, for better or worse.
> My main reason for asking relates to the fact that a lot of other projects
> have abandoned BDB, again likely not for engineering reasons.  I can
> envision a day when the "cool kids" look at software that relies on BDB
> and, not understanding the history, decide to write their own "better"
> alternative that uses the cool database of the current time.  If I hear
> anyone say MongoDB, I will almost certainly commit some type of crime.

You do realize that RPM5 has the mongo-c-driver embedded inside, batteries included,
for the past 5 years?

Seriously: most rpm users have nearly identical configurations and the
days where each and every client PC need their own speshul copy
of changelogs and descriptions and identical blobs of header metadata
are clearly numbered.

Note that rpm5 has also embedded sqlite (i.e so that sql updates can be
distributed through %post, and so that multiple copies of installed software
metadata in schema-du-jour can be used as one wishes).

*shrug* My job is to make implementations exist, not honk my warez. 

> The other concern is obviously the additional maintenance burden of having
> to also maintain the 5.x BDB codebase.  That base is pretty mature, so
> there shouldn't be a lot of need for fixes or security patches, but
> maintaining that will eventually become unpalatable.

BDB has done an excellent job maintaining a consistent backward compatible API:
there is nothing whatsoever wrong with BDB 5.x as used by RPM.

Bundle BDB into RPM if you don’t want the added package monkey task maintaining
older versions of BDB as a package, license and batteries included.

73 de Jeff

> Tim
> -- 
> Tim Mooney                                             Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu
> Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure                  701-231-1076 (Voice)
> Room 242-J6, Quentin Burdick Building                  701-231-8541 (Fax)
> North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164
Received on Wed Jan 13 08:52:55 2016
Driven by Jeff Johnson and the RPM project team.
Hosted by OpenPKG and Ralf S. Engelschall.
Powered by FreeBSD and OpenPKG.