Re: nss_ldap and openldap importing

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:11:45 +0200
Erik Nørgaard <norgaard_at_locolomo.org> wrote:

> Sorry, please accept my apologies and move on :-) I usually just
> follow this list, but since Doug brought down this path...
> 
> Doug Barton wrote:
> 
> > IMO, this argument isn't persuasive. My personal feeling is that
> > before something new gets added to the base system it needs to
> > have a pretty large userbase, perhaps even a majority of our
> > users. We have a very good ports system that exists to provide
> > easy access to "optional" software that isn't needed by a
> > majority of our users. I haven't seen any reasons why ldap
> > support doesn't fall into that category.
> 
> I don't know, but separating things out could both fragment the
> project and make things progress faster.
> 
> So, my thought was: How about a "base-ports"? A "base-port" should
> be a software package entirely maintained by the FreeBSD team but
> kept outside the base system, and must be under a BSD compatible
> licence?
> 
> My list would be, basically what can be disabled in make.conf, and
> some new ones: GAMES, LPR, NIS, SENDMAIL, BIND, DCHP (server), LDAP
> 
> Please don't flame me - I know that such a list would be eternally
> disputed...

Now there is a idea I would love to see. I don't really see a need
for it to be maintained outside of the base system, but seeing the
base system moved to something like that would be nice. Being able to
uninstall a part of the base system would be nice as well. I
personally would ride myself of sendmail.