Should we keep the Samba4 LDAP backend?

Oliver Liebel oliver at
Fri Apr 1 08:47:12 MDT 2011

to comment just this following wrong (schema) statement:
dynamic schema updates can be handled safe in OL with online 
configuration since early 2.4

> Andrew Bartlett wrote: 

> At the same time, the LDAP backend is fixed schema (no dynamic update
> currently supported), unsafe (no transactions) and really, really slow.

Am 01.04.2011 16:27, schrieb Oliver Liebel:
> Short: Yes.
> From my long term experience there are many large installations in big 
> size companys
> worldwide, that make extensive use of OpenLDAP as a standard LDAP, 
> mostly with coexisting W2KX-ADS.
> What they all need is an S4 with an (RFC) standard LDAP-backend, or 
> more exactly,
> they need an customizable, RFC-compatible LDAP-Server with 
> ADS-Capabilities,
> not only a Replacement for W2K8.
> Am 01.04.2011 14:54, schrieb Nadezhda Ivanova:
>> +1. It is very difficult to support and getting more difficult as we 
>> improve
>> the DS implementation. If there aren't any use cases for it, we 
>> should not
>> support it.
>> Regards,
>> Nadya
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Jelmer Vernooij<jelmer at>  
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 19:29 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>>> My proposal, if accepted, would be simply to remove the wiki pages and
>>>> the ability to build the ldap-backend with provision (perhaps 
>>>> leaving an
>>>> option for the test scripts).
>>>> When we later need to make some change that is directly incompatible
>>>> with the LDAP backend, then we can easily decide to do that later,
>>>> knowing it is no longer a goal.
>>>> What do folks think?
>>> +1. It may still be nice to pursue in the future, but let's not have it
>>> hold us up for now.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jelmer

More information about the samba-technical mailing list