[PATCH] groups in ldap

[Volker Lendecke]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> > But if you look at sambaAccount, it firmly ties 'uid' with 'rid',
> > which conflicts your point below.
> 
> No, it doesn't.  'uid' is 'username' in ldap-speak.

Yes, I know. And I meant it this way. I only assumed that under Unix
we have a one-to-one mapping between username and numeric uid.

> We should not store the 'gid' as part of SambaGroup.  That really is
> idmap's problem (which might refer back to exactly the same record - but
> they need to be conceptually seperated).

We need a STRUCTURAL object to attach to. Should we make the
sambaGroupMapping structural? This would make it stand-alone, but we
could then not tie it to a posixGroup. If we make it AUXILIARY, we
need another STRUCTURAL object to attach to. Which one?

Volker

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Key-ID D32186CF, Fingerprint available: phone +49 551 3700000

iD8DBQE+dvKGOmSXH9Mhhs8RAh5hAKCEiHOiamLuIMo6ILh3NgRZjo0XVACgkYIs
gwcHufTHz9NTNx/LSLmti30=
=cg3e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----