From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 9 12:30:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA25951 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:30:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (dingo.cdrom.com [204.216.28.145]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA25919 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:30:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA00524; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 12:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804091927.MAA00524@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Terry Lambert cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Netscape: Linux a top priority (news.com article) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 09 Apr 1998 05:52:59 -0000." <199804090552.WAA10707@usr04.primenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 12:27:22 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > *quite* the same as the NetScape, which runs a full v3 LDAP. The > > > UMICH LDAP + Critical Angle patches + Terry patches is nearly a > > > full v3 LDAP. But there is little subschema support, and the > > > NULL basedn support/namingcontexts attributes are not happy. > > > > Sure. But is it "good enough" for the things we originally want(ed) to > > do with it? > > Well, that would be "Yes". Cool. Let's move forwards then. > > > Oh yeah. I have part of a getpwent/gethostent/getprotoent/... > > > set of libc function replacements done (the Linux ones suck, and > > > they don't compile anyway, and they're LGPL'ed) so that you can > > > boot a FreeBSD box using an RFC2307 LDAP server instead almost > > > all of the files normally found in /etc/passwd (the ones that > > > NIS+ can serve, anyway). > > > > getfsent/getmntent/getenv... ? > > I didn't do the fstab stuff, since it was dropped from the RFC2307 > code. It's pretty trivial, actually, if you want it, but the schema > for it is draft, not RFC'ed. It's arguable whether it's worthwhile, but for completeness' sake it's better to than not to. > In general, I made some code that took N schema entries and mapped > them to N C structures. That's why I said it was better than the > Linux code. 8-). 8) So is this something you're just doing for fun, or do you have an ulterior motive? > I think moving BSD to one database is a better bet, for the long haul, > but I could revisit the code, as necessary? One database is desirable. The "millions of files" approach was a sop to POLA, and perhaps we'd be better off without it... -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message