group_mapping.ldb and 3.0.25
abartlet at samba.org
Mon Feb 19 20:49:06 GMT 2007
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 10:13 -0600, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> > ACK,
> > Would you like more and ldb "unifying" module
> > that replaces tdbsam, ldapsam and group_mapping.ldb,
> > by storing everything in a single module?
> > I think that's doable without breaking current
> > ldap setups.
> I could justifying including ldb in production if we
> gained more benefits from it. Right now I think we
> take on more work for very little benefit with
> the single group_mapping.tdb file.
But wouldn't the argument then be 'this is too big a change, and I'm
scared about this now'? I just worry that by putting this off now, it's
never going to happen. What is wrong with making this baby step, and
using ldb in one subsystem to start with? Then we can expand it's use
I certainly agree that it would be great to code the ldap passdb backend
against LDB, and likewise use it for many other services, but why does
that lead you to the conclusion to back out ldb now? Is it breaking
something? Is the implementation in group mapping such horrible code
that can't dare to see the light of day, or just fundamentally flawed?
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc. http://redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20070220/1a6b91d4/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical