On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 08:29 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > Da Rock wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 07:03 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > >> Da Rock wrote: > > >> One of the programs that depends on the client is OpenLDAP-server -- so > >> just by typing > >> > >> portinstall net/openldap23-server > >> > >> you'll cause openldap23-client (or openldap23-sasl-client) to be installed > >> as a normal consequence of ports dependency resolution. The problem comes > >> if you've already got, say, openldap23-client installed and you want > >> openldap24-client -- other applications: Apache, PHP etc. will work with > >> just about any LDAP version but openldap-server needs the matching client > >> version. The solution is something like this: > >> > >> # portupgrade -o net/openldap24-client -f openldap-client-2.3.41 > >> # portupgrade -fr openldap-client-2.4.8 > >> > >> to switch from the 23 series to the 24 series. > > > So my question was if I install the server I'll get the client, and > > you're saying yes? If thats the case then, why is it stopping because > > the client is already installed? > > Usually the problem there is either: that the openldap client that the > openldap > server requires is different to the one that is already installed, or else > that > the WANT_OPENLDAP_VER or other settings (particularly SASL related ones) in > /etc/make.conf or from the OPTIONS dialog differ from one or other or both of > the installed openldap-client and openldap-server. Get everything in synch > and > it will all go smoothly. >
Ahhhh! Thats more than likely the problem... I'll let you know if it fails. > >>> And while I'm here... I tried installing the odbc backend, but it > >>> conflicts with other apps as well. How can I have both the libiodbc and > >>> unixodbc at the same time for openldap server (requires libiodbc), php5, > >>> etc? > >> Do you really need the odbc *backend* for LDAP? That allows LDAP to store > >> its data in a MSSQL database somewhere -- which implies the data store is > >> on > >> a different server to the OpenLDAP instance. That's not ideal for good > >> performance. Unless you know you have a specific need for one of the > >> particular > >> back-ends and certainly if you are a beginner with openldap, I'd strongly > >> recommend sticking with the default local storage based on Berkeley DB. > >> > > > > Actually I thought it covered most sql servers not just mssql- if thats > > the case then good bye for sure. I was interested in maybe mysql though- > > this is not usable for that I take it? > > I believe there is a direct SQL backend which would work with a locally > installed instance of MySQL, or possibly various others (PostgreSQL, SQLite) > Even so, it's not a magic solution to make LDAP work better -- quite the > reverse > in fact, as it adds extra layers of overhead. It's one of those things where > if you think you might possibly want it, then actually you don't -- only use > it > when you absolutely know you need it. I thought it might be easier to administrate - no? _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
