group_mapping.ldb and 3.0.25

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Mon Feb 19 20:49:06 GMT 2007

On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 10:13 -0600, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Simo,
> > 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
beyond that. 

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

Andrew Bartlett                      
Authentication Developer, Samba Team 
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.        
-------------- 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 :

More information about the samba-technical mailing list