Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 19:18:50 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Michael Bushkov <bushman@rsu.ru> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nss_ldap and openldap importing Message-ID: <20060707091850.GA719@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <003c01c6a18b$937cbef0$3a00a8c0@carrera> References: <44AD2569.9070007@rsu.ru> <44ADEBCC.70607@FreeBSD.org> <003c01c6a18b$937cbef0$3a00a8c0@carrera>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Fri, 2006-Jul-07 10:06:55 +0400, Michael Bushkov wrote: >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. I don't think this follows. Things like X and perl can be installed from sysinstall with mininal effort. I'd prefer to make it easier to install nss_ldap as a package than have it in the base system. >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. It would seem cleaner to implement our own nss_ldap from scratch rather than importing a GPL one and then replacing it. IMHO, having the GPL nss_ldap in the tree would make it harder to import another one. Once people start using nss_ldap, they are going to get very picky about a replacement being bug-for-bug compatible. -- Peter Jeremy [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEribu/opHv/APuIcRAp5TAKC8P3I6LSQlocioixAwvr+DCN34hQCeLQk3 QpbaWQWI5qumUBbJk+r5V8w= =yel9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060707091850.GA719>