On Fri, 2006-Jul-07 10:06:55 +0400, Michael Bushkov wrote: >1. Having nss_ldap in the source gives an ability to use nss_ldap right >"out of the box" and equals it in rights with such nsswitch sources as NIS >and DNS. If we have NIS in the base system, I don't see any reasons not to >have nss_ldap. Besides, i'm sure, having nss_ldap in the base will make >users feeling more comfortable when dealing with it. I don't think this follows. Things like X and perl can be installed from sysinstall with mininal effort. I'd prefer to make it easier to install nss_ldap as a package than have it in the base system. >2. I guess, we'll have to rewrite nss_ldap by ourselves sooner or later >(actually, I can do it), so current nss_ldap import can be viewed as the >first stage of the plan. It would seem cleaner to implement our own nss_ldap from scratch rather than importing a GPL one and then replacing it. IMHO, having the GPL nss_ldap in the tree would make it harder to import another one. Once people start using nss_ldap, they are going to get very picky about a replacement being bug-for-bug compatible. -- Peter Jeremy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:58 UTC