Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 11:07:59 -0400 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Feature request Message-ID: <20080401110759.040dc4a9@mbook-fbsd> In-Reply-To: <fstbkr$a2a$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <763154.59087.qm@web54302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20080331172552.313e8d49@bhuda.mired.org> <fstbkr$a2a$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:00:05 +0200 Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> > Why OpenLDAP? Why not one of the other ldap implementations available
> > in the ports? In particular, do any of them already have plugins for
> > use with pam?
>
> What are the other LDAP implementations in ports? Especially the ones
> that are actively maintained (which excludes tinyldap)? Any compliant
> LDAP server with proper schemas will "support" PAM.
Why does it need to be actively maintained? After all, if we're going
to pull it into the base system, we'll have to find someone to
actively maintain the code in the base system. If no one is
maintaining the code externally, that in some ways makes their job
easier.
And I didn't say "support", I said "already have plugins". Sure,
anything can be connected to PAM if you can get someone to write the
plugins. Or are you saying there's already an ldap plugin that uses
ldap schemas?
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080401110759.040dc4a9>