Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:01:05 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> To: Michael Bushkov <bushman@rsu.ru> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP]: OpenLDAP+nss_ldap+nss_modules separated patch and more (SoC) Message-ID: <20060822210105.GF58048@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> In-Reply-To: <44EB302A.7010106@rsu.ru> References: <44E9582C.2010400@rsu.ru> <44EAA213.6010507@delphij.net> <002901c6c5ba$628b67d0$9800a8c0@carrera> <86hd0423zk.fsf@xps.des.no> <44EB302A.7010106@rsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Michael, On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 08:26:18PM +0400, Michael Bushkov wrote: > 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. Besides, this avoids to break POLA IMHO. If OpenLDAP has to be imported (is it something sure now ?), I strongly expect libldap to have its real name, as other imported softwares. Regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060822210105.GF58048>