From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 24 22:04:22 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 E8CA216A4E0 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:04:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx24.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0DFB443D64 for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:04:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 17604 invoked by uid 399); 24 Aug 2006 22:04:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.3?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Aug 2006 22:04:19 -0000 Message-ID: <44EE2260.80409@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:04:16 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060729) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Bushkov References: <44E9582C.2010400@rsu.ru> <44ECBB7D.4090905@FreeBSD.org> <002e01c6c744$97bc9560$9800a8c0@carrera> In-Reply-To: <002e01c6c744$97bc9560$9800a8c0@carrera> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org 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 22:04:23 -0000 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