Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:04:16 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.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: <44EE2260.80409@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <002e01c6c744$97bc9560$9800a8c0@carrera> References: <44E9582C.2010400@rsu.ru> <44ECBB7D.4090905@FreeBSD.org> <002e01c6c744$97bc9560$9800a8c0@carrera>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Bushkov 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.
It isn't requiring the user to build it that I'm worried about. However, I
refuse to continue tilting against this windmill. Given that I'm the only
one who seems to object to this, I withdraw my objection, and
correspondingly reserve the right to wave the "I told you this was a bad
idea" sign if it all blows up down the road.
Meanwhile, I agree with Brooks, if it's in the base, it needs to be on by
default.
> 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.
I would say that this is a minimum requirement, and I am glad that your
thinking has proceeded in this direction.
> And we should also have rewritten nss_ldap in ports (call it
> nss_ldap_bsd, for example).
Why?
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44EE2260.80409>