Plans for pdb_ads and auth_netlogond?

[Michael Adam]

simo wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 07:33 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote: 
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 02:56:43PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 12:08 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think that I can give input that is deemed worth any
> > > > consideration on this matter.
> > > 
> > > Sorry,
> > > 
> > > I'm not really sure what you mean by that.
> > > 
> > > Are you OK with the patch, or do you have plans to develop these into
> > > something that we use?
> > 
> > They are still my preferred way to let smbd3 access the
> > directory. You have decided that linking instead of ipc is
> > the better way to integrate components. Your approach has
> > more support in the community than mine,
> 
> I am not sure that is true. I made it clear earlier that I think the
> linking approach is wrong, and I do prefer the forking and executing of
> smbd.
> 
> > and as I do not
> > have the time to develop them against your efforts on my
> > own, it is only logical to remove them.
> 
> I would rather keep them around, I want to discuss the File Server
> approach later, perhaps at the SDC conference.

Hmmm, too late.

I am als not certain, why it was important to remove them.
It is not that they are in the way and blocking process, right?

Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20120617/41ddbe06/attachment.pgp>