From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 24 15:53:03 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 817CD16A4E1; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:53:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE31C43D73; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:53:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F208046CDA; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:53:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:53:01 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Brooks Davis In-Reply-To: <20060824144429.GB35200@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> Message-ID: <20060824165202.Q50633@fledge.watson.org> References: <44E9582C.2010400@rsu.ru> <44ECBB7D.4090905@FreeBSD.org> <002e01c6c744$97bc9560$9800a8c0@carrera> <20060824144429.GB35200@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Doug Barton , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Michael Bushkov Subject: Re: [HEADS UP]: OpenLDAP+nss_ldap+nss_modules separated patch and more (SoC) 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: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:53:03 -0000 On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Brooks Davis wrote: >> Well, maybe more compromise solution will be to have OpenLDAP and nss_ldap >> in the base, but to have them turned off by default, so the user would need >> to specify WITH_LDAP and WITH_NSS_LDAP in the make.conf to build them. >> More, if the user don't want to have OpenLDAP built with the base, but >> wants nss_ldap there, he'd have the ability to link nss_ldap against the >> ports. And we should also have rewritten nss_ldap in ports (call it >> nss_ldap_bsd, for example). IMHO, It's quite a flexible scheme that should >> satisfy most number of users. My main concern with such solution is: will >> it affect the capability of installing OpenLDAP and nss_ldap out of the >> box? > > I really think we need it on the install CD which realisticly means it needs > to build by default. We could potentially pack it up like kerberos in the > install process, but I'm not sure that's really necessicary. We actually don't even do that anymore -- we build Kerbreros5 support by default now. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge