Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:26:18 +0400 From: Michael Bushkov <bushman@rsu.ru> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, LI Xin <delphij@delphij.net> Subject: Re: [HEADS UP]: OpenLDAP+nss_ldap+nss_modules separated patch and more (SoC) Message-ID: <44EB302A.7010106@rsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <86hd0423zk.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <44E9582C.2010400@rsu.ru> <44EAA213.6010507@delphij.net> <002901c6c5ba$628b67d0$9800a8c0@carrera> <86hd0423zk.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>"Michael Bushkov" <bushman@rsu.ru> writes:
>
>
>>Li Xin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Would you please consider having the imported OpenLDAP to install
>>>shared objects under alternative names? It might be painful for
>>>users who wants OpenLDAP installation from the ports collection
>>>(as OpenLDAP team moves fast and fixes bug from time to time) if
>>>they get a same library in /usr/lib...
>>>
>>>
>>I've been thinking about that. Would names like "libldap_i.so" and
>>"liblber_i.so" be ok ("_i" means "imported", or "internal")?
>>
>>
>
>Please don't. If somebody isn't happy with the base system's libldap,
>they can add WITHOUT_LDAP to their make.conf.
>
>DES
>
>
This issue turned to be more complex than I originally expected. I
believe that "not having 2 different entities in the system, that do the
same thing" is the good rule. So maybe, leaving libldap.so(a) in
/usr/lib is not an absolutely good decision. But renaming libldap to
some other name and leaving it there (and enforcing everything beside
the base system to use almost the same ports' libldap) is probably much
more worse.
So, after all, I'd prefer to leave libldap (and nss_ldap, which can also
conflict with PADL's nss_ldap) as is and let users use WITHOUT_LDAP and
WITHOUT_NSS_LDAP when appropriate.
With best regards,
Michael Bushkov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44EB302A.7010106>