You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Rich Bowen <rb...@redhat.com> on 2016/06/07 10:39:46 UTC
dbmmanage
In troubleshooting something with dbmmanage, I came across this:
http://marc.info/?l=fedora-extras-commits&m=137148193030744&w=2
I'm sure there's more context here that I haven't unearthed yet, but
does anyone (Joe?) happen to remember what the comment "zombie
dbmmanage" means here? Is dbmmanage deprecated in some way that we
should reflect in the docs?
dbmmanage has some functionality that is lacking in htdbm - in
particular, the ability to import a plain text htpasswd style password
file. However, the script httxt2dbm fills that need, which is presumably
(usually) a one-time thing, rather than ongoing maintenance, so that's ok.
--Rich
Re: dbmmanage
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 06/07/2016 06:39 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> In troubleshooting something with dbmmanage, I came across this:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=fedora-extras-commits&m=137148193030744&w=2
>
> I'm sure there's more context here that I haven't unearthed yet, but
> does anyone (Joe?) happen to remember what the comment "zombie
> dbmmanage" means here? Is dbmmanage deprecated in some way that we
> should reflect in the docs?
>
> dbmmanage has some functionality that is lacking in htdbm - in
> particular, the ability to import a plain text htpasswd style password
> file. However, the script httxt2dbm fills that need, which is presumably
> (usually) a one-time thing, rather than ongoing maintenance, so that's ok.
Hmm. I take that back. httxt2dbm doesn't handle this case - it's for
files formatted for rewritemap. So converting text password files to dbm
isn't something we have a (simple) solution for other than dbmmanage.
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
Re: dbmmanage
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 06/07/2016 08:31 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> dbmmanage has some functionality that is lacking in htdbm - in
>>> particular, the ability to import a plain text htpasswd style password
>>> file. However, the script httxt2dbm fills that need, which is presumably
>>> (usually) a one-time thing, rather than ongoing maintenance, so that's ok.
>>
>> Right, we ship that too. I don't recall dropping dbmmanage being
>> controversial.
>
> I don't know that its controversial, but we do want reality reflected in
> the docs.
>
> To clarify, are you saying that this was just a RHEL/Fedora change, or
> do you know if it's more widespread than that? Trying to find a
> Debian/Ubuntu machine to verify ...
ok, Ubuntu does have dbmmanage, so perhaps we just need to have the docs
note that it's not available on all platforms, etc.
Now, I just need to figure out how to reproduce the the `import`
functionality without dbmmanage.
Thanks for the info, Joe.
--Rich
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
Re: dbmmanage
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 06/07/2016 08:21 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 06:39:46AM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote:
>> In troubleshooting something with dbmmanage, I came across this:
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=fedora-extras-commits&m=137148193030744&w=2
>>
>> I'm sure there's more context here that I haven't unearthed yet, but
>> does anyone (Joe?) happen to remember what the comment "zombie
>> dbmmanage" means here? Is dbmmanage deprecated in some way that we
>> should reflect in the docs?
>
> With ht*dbm we know for certain the tool can use exactly the same set of
> DB libraries as mod_auth*_dbm - the same was never true for dbmmanage,
> which used whatever was available to Perl. I suspect dbmmanage was the
> last thing creating a dependency from the httpd package to Perl as well.
>
> We dropped dbmmanage from our packages a very long time ago, I think
> possibly even when upgrading from 1.3 to 2.0. RHEL3's httpd 2.0
> packages don't have dbmmanage, from a quick check.
>
> When updating to 2.4 a bunch of scripts moved from sbindir to bindir,
> which fooled the spec file, dbmmanage came back to life and was
> unintenionally - and briefly - shipped in the Fedora RPMs again. Hence
> the zombie killing comment!
>
>> dbmmanage has some functionality that is lacking in htdbm - in
>> particular, the ability to import a plain text htpasswd style password
>> file. However, the script httxt2dbm fills that need, which is presumably
>> (usually) a one-time thing, rather than ongoing maintenance, so that's ok.
>
> Right, we ship that too. I don't recall dropping dbmmanage being
> controversial.
I don't know that its controversial, but we do want reality reflected in
the docs.
To clarify, are you saying that this was just a RHEL/Fedora change, or
do you know if it's more widespread than that? Trying to find a
Debian/Ubuntu machine to verify ...
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
Re: dbmmanage
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 06:39:46AM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote:
> In troubleshooting something with dbmmanage, I came across this:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=fedora-extras-commits&m=137148193030744&w=2
>
> I'm sure there's more context here that I haven't unearthed yet, but
> does anyone (Joe?) happen to remember what the comment "zombie
> dbmmanage" means here? Is dbmmanage deprecated in some way that we
> should reflect in the docs?
With ht*dbm we know for certain the tool can use exactly the same set of
DB libraries as mod_auth*_dbm - the same was never true for dbmmanage,
which used whatever was available to Perl. I suspect dbmmanage was the
last thing creating a dependency from the httpd package to Perl as well.
We dropped dbmmanage from our packages a very long time ago, I think
possibly even when upgrading from 1.3 to 2.0. RHEL3's httpd 2.0
packages don't have dbmmanage, from a quick check.
When updating to 2.4 a bunch of scripts moved from sbindir to bindir,
which fooled the spec file, dbmmanage came back to life and was
unintenionally - and briefly - shipped in the Fedora RPMs again. Hence
the zombie killing comment!
> dbmmanage has some functionality that is lacking in htdbm - in
> particular, the ability to import a plain text htpasswd style password
> file. However, the script httxt2dbm fills that need, which is presumably
> (usually) a one-time thing, rather than ongoing maintenance, so that's ok.
Right, we ship that too. I don't recall dropping dbmmanage being
controversial.
Regards, Joe