scrap dbmmanage in favor of htdbm for 2.2? document as deprecated in 2.0?

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>]

dbmmanage can be out of sync with Apache w.r.t. database formats used.
 htdbm uses exactly the same code as Apache so the set of database
formats is the same and the default preference is the same.  The
dbmmanage script has to be edited to specify a non-default database
format.  htdbm has a command-line parameter for that.

htdbm needs to be documented, but there is a submitted patch to cover that.

Re: scrap dbmmanage in favor of htdbm for 2.2? document as deprecated in 2.0?

[Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 04:58:40AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> dbmmanage can be out of sync with Apache w.r.t. database formats used.
>  htdbm uses exactly the same code as Apache so the set of database
> formats is the same and the default preference is the same.  The
> dbmmanage script has to be edited to specify a non-default database
> format.  htdbm has a command-line parameter for that.
> 
> htdbm needs to be documented, but there is a submitted patch to cover that.

It was committed too - +1 to removing dbmmanage now.

joe

Re: scrap dbmmanage in favor of htdbm for 2.2? document as deprecated in 2.0?

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:15:54 +0200, André Malo <nd...@perlig.de> wrote:
> * Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > dbmmanage can be out of sync with Apache w.r.t. database formats used.
> >  htdbm uses exactly the same code as Apache so the set of database
> > formats is the same and the default preference is the same.  The
> > dbmmanage script has to be edited to specify a non-default database
> > format.  htdbm has a command-line parameter for that.
> >
> > htdbm needs to be documented, but there is a submitted patch to cover that.
> 
> -0 since htdbm lacks the group features (afaics). When the features are taken
> over at all, count this posting as +1.

good point ;) so htdbm needs some work to be able to add a list of
groups to the entry, to support mod_authz_dbm.c

> (oh and one could easily add a command line param to dbmmanage for the dbm type ;)

understood; just no need to maintain two tools, and the strategic one
should be the one guaranteed to use the same database code as Apache

Re: scrap dbmmanage in favor of htdbm for 2.2? document as deprecated in 2.0?

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:32:25 -0500, Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:15:54 +0200, André Malo <nd...@perlig.de> wrote:
> > -0 since htdbm lacks the group features (afaics).
> 
> Probably in need of a syntax and/or doc change but the following seems
> to work with authz_dbm
> 
> htdbm  -t mydb myuser "group1,group2,group3:my comment"
> 
> (-t is "last parameter used for comments field")

Ouch.  So when people have been adding comments currently with no
preceding colon, mod_authz_dbm would interpret that as a group? 
Likely the group wouldn't match, but still...

Sounds like the comments parameter shouldn't allow embedded colon (to
avoid misinterpretation), and there should also be a group parameter
(-g group1[,group2]...), and the comment handling should put the
comment in the right place? (i.e., leave group field properly set to
empty or a list of groups)

Re: scrap dbmmanage in favor of htdbm for 2.2? document as deprecated in 2.0?

[Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:15:54 +0200, André Malo <nd...@perlig.de> wrote:
> -0 since htdbm lacks the group features (afaics). 

Probably in need of a syntax and/or doc change but the following seems
to work with authz_dbm

htdbm  -t mydb myuser "group1,group2,group3:my comment"

(-t is "last parameter used for comments field")

-- 
Eric Covener
covener@gmail.com

Re: scrap dbmmanage in favor of htdbm for 2.2? document as deprecated in 2.0?

[André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>]

* Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> dbmmanage can be out of sync with Apache w.r.t. database formats used.
>  htdbm uses exactly the same code as Apache so the set of database
> formats is the same and the default preference is the same.  The
> dbmmanage script has to be edited to specify a non-default database
> format.  htdbm has a command-line parameter for that.
> 
> htdbm needs to be documented, but there is a submitted patch to cover that.

-0 since htdbm lacks the group features (afaics). When the features are taken
over at all, count this posting as +1.

(oh and one could easily add a command line param to dbmmanage for the dbm type ;)

nd

Re: scrap dbmmanage in favor of htdbm for 2.2? document as deprecated in 2.0?

[Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>]

Jeff Trawick wrote:
> dbmmanage can be out of sync with Apache w.r.t. database formats used.
>  htdbm uses exactly the same code as Apache so the set of database
> formats is the same and the default preference is the same.  The
> dbmmanage script has to be edited to specify a non-default database
> format.  htdbm has a command-line parameter for that.
> 
> htdbm needs to be documented, but there is a submitted patch to cover that.
> 

+1.

Re: scrap dbmmanage in favor of htdbm for 2.2? document as deprecated in 2.0?

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

At 03:58 AM 3/30/2005, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>dbmmanage can be out of sync with Apache w.r.t. database formats used.
>htdbm uses exactly the same code as Apache so the set of database
>formats is the same and the default preference is the same.

+1, let it die :)