Still worth keeping cn=rootdse and cn=templates?

[Stefan (metze) Metzmacher]

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

Andrew Bartlett schrieb:
> As I move on to more strict schema checks, the cn=rootdse and
> cn=templates entries in the Samdb are becoming increasingly painful.
> This is because they contain attributes not present in the schema, and
> don't have an objectClass.
> 
> I'm wondering, should we move these to a different database, or somehow
> ignored by the module chain?
> 
> For the rootdse case, it would be possible to rename cn=rootdse to
> @ROOTDSE,

Yes, please do...

 but what should we do with cn=templates?

Can't we do the same for this?

metze

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHJszRm70gjA5TCD8RApOiAJ9RO5VJdDj7sW+vqx0DFO/g+lrpNACcCDRl
WNH3GDCZH0RM0xZWVq5U2Kk=
=dfJu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----