From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 25 06:23:02 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 3208216A4DA; Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:23:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bushman@rsu.ru) Received: from mail.r61.net (mail.r61.net [195.208.245.249]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413EF43D5F; Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:22:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bushman@rsu.ru) Received: from carrera ([82.179.80.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.r61.net (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7P6MVQt063703 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:22:34 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from bushman@rsu.ru) Message-ID: <002501c6c80e$db6fea80$9800a8c0@carrera> From: "Michael Bushkov" To: "Doug Barton" References: <44E9582C.2010400@rsu.ru> <44ECBB7D.4090905@FreeBSD.org> <002e01c6c744$97bc9560$9800a8c0@carrera> <44EE2260.80409@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:22:32 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.2, clamav-milter version 0.88.2 on asterix.r61.net X-Virus-Status: Clean 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: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:23:02 -0000 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