From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 24 06:14:50 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9825D16A4DA; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:14:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bushman@rsu.ru) Received: from mail.r61.net (mail.r61.net [195.208.245.249]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F4F43D49; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:14:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bushman@rsu.ru) Received: from carrera ([82.179.82.167]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.r61.net (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7O6EZIn033031 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:14:38 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from bushman@rsu.ru) Message-ID: <002e01c6c744$97bc9560$9800a8c0@carrera> From: "Michael Bushkov" To: "Doug Barton" References: <44E9582C.2010400@rsu.ru> <44ECBB7D.4090905@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:13:41 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.2, clamav-milter version 0.88.2 on asterix.r61.net X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP]: OpenLDAP+nss_ldap+nss_modules separated patch and more (SoC) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:14:50 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: > Michael Bushkov wrote: > Here is where (once again) we have a difference of opinion. I still > believe > strongly that the nss_ldap part of your work should be a port, with a > dependency on the openldap in ports. I've stated my reasoning on this in > the > previous thread, so I won't rehash it here unless someone asks. I would > like > to point out though that I feel the numerous problems raised in this > thread > give even more weight to the request that I, and others made not to have > it > incorporated into the base. > > This in no way is meant to indicate that your work has no value, or is > somehow "less valuable" than work that is actually in the base. It is > simply > a realistic reflection of the fact that this facility will be needed by a > small percentage of FreeBSD users, and the difficulties (costs) outweigh > the > corresponding benefit. > > A compromise position, if it can be made to work, would be to import your > original work on the nss_ldap module, but have it use openldap from ports > rather than having to import openldap. Well, maybe more compromise solution will be to have OpenLDAP and nss_ldap in the base, but to have them turned off by default, so the user would need to specify WITH_LDAP and WITH_NSS_LDAP in the make.conf to build them. More, if the user don't want to have OpenLDAP built with the base, but wants nss_ldap there, he'd have the ability to link nss_ldap against the ports. And we should also have rewritten nss_ldap in ports (call it nss_ldap_bsd, for example). IMHO, It's quite a flexible scheme that should satisfy most number of users. My main concern with such solution is: will it affect the capability of installing OpenLDAP and nss_ldap out of the box? With best regards, Michael Bushkov