Re: [HEADS UP]: OpenLDAP+nss_ldap+nss_modules separated patch and more (SoC)

Doug Barton wrote:
> Michael Bushkov wrote:
> 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.

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?

With best regards,
Michael Bushkov