Re: Supported backends/overlays in 2.5

2016-03-03 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
--On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 4:06 AM +0100 doce...@spinlocksolutions.com wrote: On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:33:47 -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: Hello, For 2.5, it would be good to take a look at existing backends and overlays we ship as supported, and see if there are any we want to retir

Re: Supported backends/overlays in 2.5

2016-02-23 Thread Howard Chu
Ryan Tandy wrote: I thought there was talk a while ago of autogroup possibly being promoted, is that still a possibility? http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-technical/201503/msg00022.html Personally I'm against this. I've seen autogroup being used in production and the size of resulting g

Re: Supported backends/overlays in 2.5

2016-02-23 Thread Howard Chu
Michael Ströder wrote: Yupp. And probably back-passwd. back-passwd remains as a readable model of how to write a minimal backend. It is still suitable for that purpose. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hy

Re: Supported backends/overlays in 2.5

2016-02-23 Thread docelic
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:33:47 -0800 Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: Hello, > For 2.5, it would be good to take a look at existing backends and overlays > we ship as supported, and see if there are any we want to retire. > > ... > > Another possibility is back-perl. ... > We have gotten contributions

Re: Supported backends/overlays in 2.5

2016-02-23 Thread Michael Ströder
Clément OUDOT wrote: > > > Le 23/02/2016 07:54, Michael Ströder a écrit : >> Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: >>> back-sock is a better solution. OTOH, We >>> have gotten contributions fixing issues in it as recently as April 2015, so >>> there may be folks using it who would like to see it continue.

Re: Supported backends/overlays in 2.5

2016-02-23 Thread Clément OUDOT
Le 23/02/2016 07:54, Michael Ströder a écrit : Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: back-sock is a better solution. OTOH, We have gotten contributions fixing issues in it as recently as April 2015, so there may be folks using it who would like to see it continue. There is back-sock in production (as a

Re: Supported backends/overlays in 2.5

2016-02-22 Thread Michael Ströder
Ryan Tandy wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 06:33:47PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: >> I would like to see us retire slapd-bdb and slapd-hdb. > > How much work is it costing to keep them around? > > I agree completely with marking them deprecated and having configure disable > them by defaul

Re: Supported backends/overlays in 2.5

2016-02-22 Thread Michael Ströder
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > back-sock is a better solution. OTOH, We > have gotten contributions fixing issues in it as recently as April 2015, so > there may be folks using it who would like to see it continue. There is back-sock in production (as an overlay) for an OATH-LDAP installation. > I

Re: Supported backends/overlays in 2.5

2016-02-22 Thread Ryan Tandy
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 06:33:47PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: I would like to see us retire slapd-bdb and slapd-hdb. How much work is it costing to keep them around? I agree completely with marking them deprecated and having configure disable them by default, but I also don't see a lot

Supported backends/overlays in 2.5

2016-02-22 Thread Quanah Gibson-Mount
For 2.5, it would be good to take a look at existing backends and overlays we ship as supported, and see if there are any we want to retire. I think it would be nice as well to make it so people could configure in various contrib modules via configure flags, rather than the current manual make