Bug 1788538 - Removing libdb dependency from iproute
Summary: Removing libdb dependency from iproute
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: iproute
Version: 38
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Andrea Claudi
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1778802
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-01-07 13:18 UTC by Filip Januš
Modified: 2024-02-09 23:45 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version: iproute-6.7.0-1.fc40
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-02-09 23:45:40 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Filip Januš 2020-01-07 13:18:38 UTC
According to more restrictive libdb licence policy exists effort to remove libdb's dependencies.
Iproute package is now built with libdb requirement(due to arpd tool), it seems that arpd doesn't support other database.

Comment 1 Ben Cotton 2020-02-11 17:37:10 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 32 development cycle.
Changing version to 32.

Comment 2 Phil Sutter 2020-06-19 15:29:12 UTC
What's the proposed solution? splitting arpd into a sub-package? Dropping it?

The tool uses Berkeley DB. Is that not commonly used anymore? What alternative do other tools use instead? Or is there a replacement for libdb package?

Comment 3 Filip Januš 2020-07-20 09:49:27 UTC
Hi Phil,
most of other tools supports more then only one database (BerkeleyDB), so there is possibility to use another backend database.
But in case of arpd I don't see any good solution. Support from upstream we can't expect. From communication with upstrem turned out, that arpd is rarely used, rarely tested and no changes
have occurred in 10 years.

In this situation would be the best solution to create a patch for support another database. Now I can't say if some libdb-compat will preserve, but we would like to remove all libdb packages and it's dependencies.

Comment 4 Phil Sutter 2020-07-27 14:56:14 UTC
(In reply to Filip Januš from comment #3)
> Hi Phil,
> most of other tools supports more then only one database (BerkeleyDB), so
> there is possibility to use another backend database.
> But in case of arpd I don't see any good solution. Support from upstream we
> can't expect. From communication with upstrem turned out, that arpd is
> rarely used, rarely tested and no changes
> have occurred in 10 years.
> 
> In this situation would be the best solution to create a patch for support
> another database. Now I can't say if some libdb-compat will preserve, but we
> would like to remove all libdb packages and it's dependencies.

That doesn't answer my question, sorry. What's wrong with BDB, are you about to remove it from Fedora or is it just about libdb? If the latter is the case, what alternative is there to interface against BDB?

Thanks, Phil

Comment 5 Filip Januš 2020-07-28 15:57:07 UTC
If you are asking for proposed solution. From my point of view is the simplest solution edit code of arpd and change usage of libdb to some different database or remove arpd. Because I don't know about database with compatible API with BDB.

Comment 6 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2020-12-19 02:51:48 UTC
This package has changed maintainer in the Fedora.
Reassigning to the new maintainer of this component.

Comment 7 Fedora Program Management 2021-04-29 16:01:41 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 32 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 32 on 2021-05-25.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
Fedora 'version' of '32'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 32 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 8 Ben Cotton 2021-05-25 15:15:40 UTC
Fedora 32 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2021-05-25. Fedora 32 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.

Comment 9 Ben Cotton 2021-08-10 12:47:00 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 35 development cycle.
Changing version to 35.

Comment 10 Ben Cotton 2022-11-29 16:47:30 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 35 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 35 on 2022-12-13.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
'version' of '35'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora Linux version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora Linux 35 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version
prior to this bug being closed.

Comment 11 Ben Cotton 2022-12-13 15:14:12 UTC
Fedora Linux 35 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2022-12-13.

Fedora Linux 35 is no longer maintained, which means that it
will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we
are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora Linux
please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Note that the version
field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see
the version field.

If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against an
active release.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.

Comment 13 Ben Cotton 2023-02-07 15:09:53 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 38 development cycle.
Changing version to 38.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.