Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>