Managing DNs in libads only in utf8

Gerald (Jerry) Carter jerry at
Tue Feb 27 19:37:05 GMT 2007

Hash: SHA1

simo wrote:

>> So we have two proposals.  One which requires 
>> code changes and one which does not.  Why
>> should we pick the one that requires code
>> changes?
> Cause Jeremy's patch is a noop ?

Yup.  We currently have a little pain and a
band-aid.  You proposing out patient surgery.
Maybe not anything to get anxious about but
enough toi ask ourselves is the surgery worth
it when it's not that bad right now.  Make

You have to jusitify why the surgery is the
best course over the current status quo that
seems to be ok.

> This may be true, but I still hope we don't reason 
> by absolutes and decide case by case on the merit
> of the code.

True.  That's what I was trying to say in the
previous email.  Proposing any change eventually
requires that you have code.  Knowing the
opposition to a design does not prevent you
from prototyping your design anyways.

So again, Simo Sorce...."Deal?  Or no deal?"

> My call, I rather prefer to see my patch reject 
> and being told WONTFIX than not trying to enhance
> our code at all.
> But if WONTFIX will be the answer I will like to raise 
> the question of being more radical than what we are
> wrt support of non utf8 charset as pointed out in
> the answer to Jeremy.

I think Jeremy is advocating the WONTFIX bugzilla tag
or at least a very minimal fix like patch original
proposed for the filter.

Anything beyond that is a larger discussion as has
been proven here.

cheers, jerry
Samba                                    -------
Centeris                         -----------
"What man is a man who does not make the world better?"      --Balian
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the samba-technical mailing list