Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:04:12 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Michael Bushkov <bushman@rsu.ru> Subject: Re: [HEADS UP]: OpenLDAP+nss_ldap+nss_modules separated patch and more (SoC) Message-ID: <44F4E40C.7000101@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200608291627.32524.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <44E9582C.2010400@rsu.ru> <20060825220033.GC16768@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20060826055402.W43127@fledge.watson.org> <200608291627.32524.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: >On Saturday 26 August 2006 01:00, Robert Watson wrote: > > >> > >Agreed. I also think LDAP would be a very useful thing to add. I know that >I currently use NIS/yp because it just works and is integrated into the base, >etc. I think adding LDAP as the logical successor to NIS/yp would be a good >thing. > > > I agree with John. Historically things have moved to the base system when they have reached some amount of public use, and they have been needed for a large number of othre parts.. e.g. SSL. I think that LDAP has reached this point (in fact did so many several years ago) and having a standard ldap implementation in the base system allows us to make FreeBSD machien splay better in many environments. It can always be removed for 'small' systems but I think that having the ability to exist in ldap envrinments by default is getting more and more important.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44F4E40C.7000101>