From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ondrej Valousek Subject: Re: autofs & system libnss* libraries Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:47:04 +0200 Message-ID: <48DA36C8.4040403@s3group.cz> References: <48DA0F09.9090602@s3group.cz> <1222258619.1280.31.camel@raven.themaw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1222258619.1280.31.camel@raven.themaw.net> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org > > No! > > I considered that at the outset of version 5 development and decided > against it after working on integrating the outdated code that was > included in the nss_ldap distribution. Unless the situation changes > significantly then I'm not likely to change my mind on this. > Does it mean that the nss_ldap is heavily outdated then? > I would have to write the nss code for "all" the possible sources > against a an API that is difficult to write for, partly because the > interface documentation is lousy. Not to mention that I'd then be at the > mercy of nss_ldap changes and bugs, and autofs would depend on a > configuration file that it doesn't control. > My primary concern was why should we (linux distro maintainers) support 2 things essentially doing the same? I did not mean you specifically. Maintaining the libnss* libraries should be (probably) job for someone else - you keep focused on the autofs-specific tasks. And if you think your nss_ldap is better, why should not it serve other purposes (like gathering user info from LDAP repository), too? I mean, from the longer perspective, I believe we should merge these things. It is neither elegant nor transparent for normal sysadmins. > > Ian > > > Ondrej