Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Mark libdb as deprecated

[Ben Cotton]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Libdb_deprecated

== Summary ==
This change should inform maintainers and developers about effort to
remove libdb in future.

== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:fjanus|Filip Januš]]
* Email: fjanus(a)redhat.com


== Detailed Description ==
We would like to remove libdb from Fedora in future, because
BerkeleyDB 6.x has a more restrictive license than the previous
versions (AGPLv3 vs. LGPLv2) and due many projects can't use it.
Nowadays Fedora uses the old version (5.3.28) and we can't update to
newer. Due to many projects have libdb dependency, we propose few
steps to complete removal. First step would mark libdb as deprecated
package in Fedora 33. Next steps in Fedora 35 would provide converting
tool for existing databases and mark libdb as orphaned.


== Benefit to Fedora ==
We would like to have most recent releases of components in Fedora,
which are supported by upstreams. But due to licence of BerkeleyDB we
need to hold old BerkeleyDB version in Fedora.


== Scope ==
* Proposal owners: Not needed for this change - only deprecation
* Other developers: Developers should prepare own projects(scripts,
programs, packages, ...) for the next change and for the complete
libdb removal.
* Policies and guidelines: Not needed for this change - only deprecation
* Trademark approval: Not needed for this change - only deprecation


== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
This change hasn't direct impact onto actual dependencies. Purpose of
this change is inform and prepare people to future change which will
affect many components.

[https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail].o...
Here] is short discussion from Fedora-devel list.

== User Experience ==
There is no change for users. Package is marked only as deprecated
package and behaves as before.

== Dependencies ==
*Libdb has many dependencies:
*389-ds-base
*apr-util-bdb
*bind-sdb
*bogofilter
*cld
*clisp
*cyrus-sasl-lib
*dsniff
*evolution-data-server
*exim
*heimdal
*iproute
*ipv6calc
*isync
*jabberd
*jigdo
*jigdo-gui
*kdesvn
*libetpan
*libopendkim
*libserf
*lizardfs-master
*mesos
*mod_dav_svn
*mod_perl
*mod_qos
*mod_security
*netatalk
*nmh
*nss_updatedb
*nvi
*opendkim
*openldap-servers
*opensips-db_berkeley
*opensmtpd
*pam
*pam_abl
*pam_ccreds
*perdition
*perl-BDB
*perl-BerkeleyDB
*perl-DB_File
*perl-eperl
*php-dba
*pl
*postfix
*python3-bsddb3
*rapidsvn
*redland
*reprepro
*rpm
*rsvndump
*sendmail
*sks
*spamprobe
*squid
*squidGuard
*subversion
*tqsllib
*trustedqsl
*webalizer
*xemacs

== Contingency Plan ==
* Contingency mechanism: (What to do?  Who will do it?) N/A (not a
System Wide Change)
* Contingency deadline: N/A
* Blocks release? No

== Documentation ==
There is no upstream documentation, but
[[User:Pkubat/Draft_-_Removing_BerkeleyDB_from_Fedora|here]] is a list
of dependencies with some useful comments and
[[User:Pkubat/BerkeleyDB_alternatives|here]] some possible
alternatives.

-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Libdb_deprecated
>  
>  == Summary ==
>  This change should inform maintainers and developers about effort to
>  remove libdb in future.
>  
>  == Owner ==
>  * Name: [[User:fjanus|Filip Januš]]
>  * Email: fjanus(a)redhat.com
>  
>  
>  == Detailed Description ==
>  We would like to remove libdb from Fedora in future, because
>  BerkeleyDB 6.x has a more restrictive license than the previous
>  versions (AGPLv3 vs. LGPLv2) and due many projects can't use it.
>  Nowadays Fedora uses the old version (5.3.28) and we can't update to
>  newer. Due to many projects have libdb dependency, we propose few
>  steps to complete removal. First step would mark libdb as deprecated
>  package in Fedora 33. Next steps in Fedora 35 would provide converting
>  tool for existing databases and mark libdb as orphaned. 
Is there a way to read old database files?

libguestfs uses libdb (actually utils like db_dump) in order to read
old RPM databases from old guests.  Since these old guests never go
away we'd like to continue to support them.  (And before anyone
mentions librpm, that just moves the problem around.)

BTW your list of dependencies didn't include libguestfs because the
dependency is indirect (via libdb-utils), so you probably missed other
packages as well.

Also I'm unclear why packaging BDB 6 is a problem.  What's wrong with
AGPLv3?  Still free software surely?

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and
build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW

[Panu Matilainen]

On 4/1/20 8:37 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>  On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Libdb_deprecated
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > This change should inform maintainers and developers about effort to
> > remove libdb in future.
> >
> > == Owner ==
> > * Name: [[User:fjanus|Filip Januš]]
> > * Email: fjanus(a)redhat.com
> >
> >
> > == Detailed Description ==
> > We would like to remove libdb from Fedora in future, because
> > BerkeleyDB 6.x has a more restrictive license than the previous
> > versions (AGPLv3 vs. LGPLv2) and due many projects can't use it.
> > Nowadays Fedora uses the old version (5.3.28) and we can't update to
> > newer. Due to many projects have libdb dependency, we propose few
> > steps to complete removal. First step would mark libdb as deprecated
> > package in Fedora 33. Next steps in Fedora 35 would provide converting
> > tool for existing databases and mark libdb as orphaned.
>  
>  Is there a way to read old database files?
>  
>  libguestfs uses libdb (actually utils like db_dump) in order to read
>  old RPM databases from old guests.  Since these old guests never go
>  away we'd like to continue to support them.  (And before anyone
>  mentions librpm, that just moves the problem around.) 
Actually, at the end of last year RPM gained the ability to read BDB 
databases without libdb as an x-mas present from Michael Schroeder :)
That's the "bdb_ro" backend mentioned in rpm %changelog on the alpha 
snapshot update.

Rpm will autodetect the on-disk database but as long as real BDB is 
available, it'll use that. So for the time being, to test the 
readonly-backend you'll need to explicitly set the backend to bdb_ro with
--define "_db_backend bdb_ro".

>  
>  BTW your list of dependencies didn't include libguestfs because the
>  dependency is indirect (via libdb-utils), so you probably missed other
>  packages as well.
>  
>  Also I'm unclear why packaging BDB 6 is a problem.  What's wrong with
>  AGPLv3?  Still free software surely? 
Plenty of material on the subject around the net, eg 
https://lwn.net/Articles/557820/

	- Panu -

>  
>  Rich.
>

[Petr Kubat]

On 4/2/20 8:34 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>  On 4/1/20 8:37 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Libdb_deprecated
> >>
> >> == Summary ==
> >> This change should inform maintainers and developers about effort to
> >> remove libdb in future.
> >>
> >> == Owner ==
> >> * Name: [[User:fjanus|Filip Januš]]
> >> * Email: fjanus(a)redhat.com
> >>
> >>
> >> == Detailed Description ==
> >> We would like to remove libdb from Fedora in future, because
> >> BerkeleyDB 6.x has a more restrictive license than the previous
> >> versions (AGPLv3 vs. LGPLv2) and due many projects can't use it.
> >> Nowadays Fedora uses the old version (5.3.28) and we can't update to
> >> newer. Due to many projects have libdb dependency, we propose few
> >> steps to complete removal. First step would mark libdb as deprecated
> >> package in Fedora 33. Next steps in Fedora 35 would provide converting
> >> tool for existing databases and mark libdb as orphaned.
> >
> > Is there a way to read old database files?
> >
> > libguestfs uses libdb (actually utils like db_dump) in order to read
> > old RPM databases from old guests.  Since these old guests never go
> > away we'd like to continue to support them.  (And before anyone
> > mentions librpm, that just moves the problem around.)
>
>  Actually, at the end of last year RPM gained the ability to read BDB 
>  databases without libdb as an x-mas present from Michael Schroeder :)
>  That's the "bdb_ro" backend mentioned in rpm %changelog on the alpha 
>  snapshot update.
>
>  Rpm will autodetect the on-disk database but as long as real BDB is 
>  available, it'll use that. So for the time being, to test the 
>  readonly-backend you'll need to explicitly set the backend to bdb_ro with
>  --define "_db_backend bdb_ro".
>
> >
> > BTW your list of dependencies didn't include libguestfs because the
> > dependency is indirect (via libdb-utils), so you probably missed other
> > packages as well.
> >
> > Also I'm unclear why packaging BDB 6 is a problem.  What's wrong with
> > AGPLv3?  Still free software surely?
>
>  Plenty of material on the subject around the net, eg 
>  https://lwn.net/Articles/557820/ 
tldr: We could package it without any issues, as AGPLv3 is accepted by 
Fedora, but most current dependencies are not be able to use bdb6 it at 
all without license changes.

Petr


>      - Panu -
>
> >
> > Rich.
> >
>  _______________________________________________
>  devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: 
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives: 
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]