Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 08:40:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Christian Kratzer <ck@cksoft.de> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@mahoroba.org> Subject: Re: openldap port(s) Message-ID: <20030530083600.Q63847@majakka.cksoft.de> In-Reply-To: <200305292329.31117@aldan> References: <200305291512.08284.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <20030529213407.X46562@majakka.cksoft.de> <ygeisrt5fb5.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <200305292329.31117@aldan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Thu, 29 May 2003, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > On Thursday 29 May 2003 10:38 pm, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote: > = >>>>> On Thu, 29 May 2003 21:36:45 +0200 (CEST) Christian Kratzer > = >>>>> <ck@cksoft.de> said: > = > = > There is another peculiarity. SASL will offer openldap as an option. > = > It is not auto-selected, but is tempting :-) Selecting it will > = > result in an unhandled circular dependency. Is building LDAP-aware > = > SASL and SASL-aware LDAP only possible by building one of them > = > twice? Thanks! > > = ck> I know. I have discussed this with a couple of people and we think > = ck> the best way to address this would be by splitting the sasl port > = ck> into a base sasl port and a saslauthd port. > > = Though I didn't see any discussion about this issue, I made it already > = locally. Since now is in ports freeze state, I cannot commit it. So, > = I'm waiting the ports freeze is over. > > I'd say, openldap also needs splitting into -client and -server. That > way KDE-base can easily depend on just the client and have the LDAP > support built-in (unless I totally miss something out, of course). And > I'll have the kaddressbook, that can talk to the company's Exchange > server.. the openldap21 port already has the hooks to do this. In case we want this for freebsd we should create a slave port for openldap21-client and openldap21-server. This should propably be discussed more broadly so that we have consensus that we want it that way. The bulk added by openldap server is not noticable and would not justify splitting the port. What we really would gain from such a split is reduction of dependencies when server is not needed. We will have an ldap capable nswitch in the future. Being able to add the ldap client without too much other dependencies could be a real gain here. I have cc'd ports@freebsd.org and left all of the quoted messages in the mail so that others can comment on this too. Greetings Christian -- CK Software GmbH Christian Kratzer, Schwarzwaldstr. 31, 71131 Jettingen Email: ck@cksoft.de Phone: +49 7452 889-135 Open Software Solutions, Network Security Fax: +49 7452 889-136 FreeBSD spoken here!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030530083600.Q63847>