Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Sun Oct 17 14:01:49 MDT 2010

On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 15:06 +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 14:55 +0200, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
> > Okay, the revert will be pushed by autobuild soon. Sorry - but this is 
> > really confusing. We should make it clear that these are for generic LDB 
> > databases. But why we don't move them into the main LDB?
> I don't think it's unclear that they are generic. Either way, I agree
> that it might make sense to move them into upstream LDB or,
> alternatively, ldb-samba. 

I really think we should get rid of gendb_search().  It is a poor
interface, and looses errors (only a -1 return is available). 

For sam.ldb, the dsdb_search() functions provide helpful wrappers (they
really are not locked to sam.ldb, but I'll let others pontificate on if
they should be used more broadly), but is is my view that one way or
another, gendb_search() should be eliminated, because of the poor error

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                      
Authentication Developer, Samba Team 
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list