[PATCH] groups in ldap

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 21:18, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> -----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?

Why not both?

ie, have a 'structural' that contains nothing, and hang the 'real' class
off that if we don't have anything else to hang it off.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                 abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team  abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College   abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org     http://build.samba.org     http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20030318/412d31c3/attachment.bin