Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:00:31 -0700 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Michael Bushkov <bushman@rsu.ru> Subject: Re: nss_ldap and openldap importing Message-ID: <20060711020031.GB3507@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <20060710224854.GC47557@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <44AD2569.9070007@rsu.ru> <44AD4D27.3060109@FreeBSD.org> <20060707015458.GC500@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20060710224854.GC47557@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--7iMSBzlTiPOCCT2k Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 03:48:54PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 06:54:58PM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 10:49:27AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > ..snip.. > > > > nss_ldap itself uses LGPL. As we use nss_ldap only as dynamic libra= ry, > > > > which is used in the "larger work" (which FreeBSD is), it can be al= so > > > > included into the source tree. So, we can import nss_ldap, by direc= tly > > > > importing (with some specific changes, though) it and OpenLDAP into= the > > > > source tree, can we? Just want to be sure that I understand licensi= ng > > > > situation correctly. > > >=20 > > > My understanding is that we are generally trying to avoid importing a= ny new > > > code that has any sort of GPL license. That would certainly be my (pe= rsonal) > > > preference in any case. > >=20 > > Unless we have someone crediably committed to rewritting nss_ldap I > > think this is a good place to make an exception. We can always remove > > it later if an implementation exists, but we could really use better > > integration with ldap. >=20 > Why can't this live in ports? In none of my environments do I need LDAP > support. I cannot imagine most of our users need LDAP support either. > Also, openldap-2.3.24 appears to be 19MB of files. Just what are we > talking about importing? I assume just the 3MB of the library directory? My life would be a heck of a lot simpler if LDAP support were included in the base. At the moment I'm using NIS in several situations where it just doesn't cut it any more. IMO we need (as a minimum) a modern network directory service client in the base. While a majority of FreeBSD users may not need LDAP in the base, I would suspect that a majority of machines would benefit from it. A much greater portion of machines would probably benefit from and LDAP client then benefit from a number of the servers in the base system such as BIND (not a criticism of having BIND in the base). -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --7iMSBzlTiPOCCT2k Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEswY+XY6L6fI4GtQRArF4AKDIPUkfX2Oj9GiX/gS2Nh2jkhwtDgCg561Y 4NcQzdisg1alD+ytVXOMOG4= =WsJD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7iMSBzlTiPOCCT2k--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060711020031.GB3507>