From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 7 06:07:11 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 8C3EC16A4DA; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 06:07:11 +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 CA76A43D45; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 06:07:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bushman@rsu.ru) Received: from carrera ([82.179.80.78]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.r61.net (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k67673eh052692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:07:06 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from bushman@rsu.ru) Message-ID: <003c01c6a18b$937cbef0$3a00a8c0@carrera> From: "Michael Bushkov" To: "Doug Barton" References: <44AD2569.9070007@rsu.ru> <44ADEBCC.70607@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:06:55 +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: nss_ldap and openldap importing 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: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 06:07:11 -0000 > Concern about licensing aside, given the other question that was raised, > perhaps you can provide a little more detail in terms of answering the > question, "What can having this in the base do for us that having it as a > port cannot?" 2 arguments, basically: 1. Having nss_ldap in the source gives an ability to use nss_ldap right "out of the box" and equals it in rights with such nsswitch sources as NIS and DNS. If we have NIS in the base system, I don't see any reasons not to have nss_ldap. Besides, i'm sure, having nss_ldap in the base will make users feeling more comfortable when dealing with it. 2. I guess, we'll have to rewrite nss_ldap by ourselves sooner or later (actually, I can do it), so current nss_ldap import can be viewed as the first stage of the plan. The second stage is replacing PADL's nss_ldap with our own implementation. With best regards, Michael Bushkov