Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:33:01 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Michael Bushkov <bushman@rsu.ru> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP]: OpenLDAP+nss_ldap+nss_modules separated patch and more (SoC) Message-ID: <44ECBB7D.4090905@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <44E9582C.2010400@rsu.ru> References: <44E9582C.2010400@rsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Bushkov wrote:
> Hi,
> First, thanks to all FreeBSD people and to Google for the great summer!
> As the SoC deadline has almost arrived, I'm glad to post most of this
> summer's work results.
Congratulations on your success with this project!
> OpenLDAP + rewritten-from-scratch nss_ldap + nsswitch with separate
> shared nss-modules patch.
> To have
> it in the tree, OpenLDAP was also needed to be placed in the tree.
Here is where (once again) we have a difference of opinion. I still believe
strongly that the nss_ldap part of your work should be a port, with a
dependency on the openldap in ports. I've stated my reasoning on this in the
previous thread, so I won't rehash it here unless someone asks. I would like
to point out though that I feel the numerous problems raised in this thread
give even more weight to the request that I, and others made not to have it
incorporated into the base.
This in no way is meant to indicate that your work has no value, or is
somehow "less valuable" than work that is actually in the base. It is simply
a realistic reflection of the fact that this facility will be needed by a
small percentage of FreeBSD users, and the difficulties (costs) outweigh the
corresponding benefit.
A compromise position, if it can be made to work, would be to import your
original work on the nss_ldap module, but have it use openldap from ports
rather than having to import openldap.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44ECBB7D.4090905>