> The bug listed here incorrectly links to my site. It should have linked to > the official BDB site, as this bug is from the BDB folks themselves. > > <http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/berkeley-db/db/update/4.2.52/patch.4.2.52.html> > > In particular, this is patch #5. It is *required* for the later OpenLDAP > 2.2 and all of OpenLDAP 2.3 to work right. The severity here needs to > raised to grave, as the OpenLDAP distributed with etch cannot function > correctly without this patch.
Just to clarify here for all fascinated readers: This bug is, or was originally, about the patch at http://www.openldap.org/devel/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/build/Attic/BerkeleyDB42.patch?rev=1.5.4.1&hideattic=1&sortbydate=0 According to OpenLDAP CVS commit logs and this Faq-O-Matic entry, http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/44.html this unofficial BDB patch is obsoleted by OpenLDAP 2.3. The vendor patch to which Quanah refers was the subject of a brief mailing list thread beginning here http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-db-devel/2007-February/001157.html and continuing here http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-db-devel/2007-March/001161.html but no bug report was generated as a result of that thread as far as I am aware. In the interest of making me less confused, I am presently going to make a new bug that is explicitly about vendor patch #5. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
