Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:53:01 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Michael Bushkov <bushman@rsu.ru> Subject: Re: [HEADS UP]: OpenLDAP+nss_ldap+nss_modules separated patch and more (SoC) Message-ID: <20060824165202.Q50633@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20060824144429.GB35200@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <44E9582C.2010400@rsu.ru> <44ECBB7D.4090905@FreeBSD.org> <002e01c6c744$97bc9560$9800a8c0@carrera> <20060824144429.GB35200@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060824165202.Q50633>