Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:22:32 +0400 From: "Michael Bushkov" <bushman@rsu.ru> To: "Doug Barton" <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP]: OpenLDAP+nss_ldap+nss_modules separated patch and more (SoC) Message-ID: <002501c6c80e$db6fea80$9800a8c0@carrera> References: <44E9582C.2010400@rsu.ru> <44ECBB7D.4090905@FreeBSD.org> <002e01c6c744$97bc9560$9800a8c0@carrera> <44EE2260.80409@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton wrote: > Michael Bushkov wrote: > >> Well, maybe more compromise solution will be to have OpenLDAP and >> nss_ldap in the base, but to have them turned off by default, so the user >> would need to specify WITH_LDAP and WITH_NSS_LDAP in the make.conf to >> build them. > > It isn't requiring the user to build it that I'm worried about. However, I > refuse to continue tilting against this windmill. Given that I'm the only > one who seems to object to this, I withdraw my objection, and > correspondingly reserve the right to wave the "I told you this was a bad > idea" sign if it all blows up down the road. Ok - If it all blows up down the road, I'll stick the "he warned me" sign to my forehead :) > > Meanwhile, I agree with Brooks, if it's in the base, it needs to be on by > default. I agree too. >> And we should also have rewritten nss_ldap in ports (call it >> nss_ldap_bsd, for example). > > Why? Why not? It will be useful for somebody who'll want to use our nss_ldap instead of the PADL's one (I hope these times to come :) and will want to maintain it only via ports. With best regards, Michael Bushkov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?002501c6c80e$db6fea80$9800a8c0>