So, any updates?
2013/3/2 Dave Reisner <d...@falconindy.com> > On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 04:13:01PM -0500, Dave Reisner wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 02, 2013 at 01:32:48PM -0300, Thiago Kenji Okada wrote: > > > nss-pam-ldapd is actively maintained while nss_ldap/pam_ldap are not > > > updated in a while. nss-pam-ldapd is more robust too (I had a similar > > > problem like https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/33672 that didn't occur > with > > > nss-pam-ldapd; and according to that bug report actually a > > > nss_ldap/pam_ldap setup is simply broken). According to the author ( > > > http://arthurdejong.org/nss-pam-ldapd/) nss-pam-ldapd is faster and > more > > > easily to debug (I didn't measured performance, but indeed > nss-pam-ldapd is > > > easier to debug, since it's service nslcd have a nice log output). I > think > > > Fedora and Mageia uses nss-pam-ldapd for default instead > nss_ldap/pam_ldap. > > > Even our Wiki ( > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenLDAP_Authentication) > > > is recommending nss-pam-ldapd instead of nss_ldap/pam_ldap (actually, > if > > > you follow our Wiki using nss_ldap/pam_ldap you will have a non-working > > > LDAP setup). > > > > > > So I suggest to drop nss_ldap/pam_ldap to AUR and put nss-pam-ldapd on > > > [Extra] repository. > > > -- > > > Thiago Kenji Okada <thiago.mas...@gmail.com> > > > PGP Key: EEC09705 > > > > Looks like there's already a feature request: > > > > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/32911 > > > > @Tom and Allan, you guys maintain the packages that would be replaced > > here -- either of you have an interest in adopting this? > > > > d > > Argh. Reading the wrong field... Definitely all Jan. > -- Thiago Kenji Okada <thiago.mas...@gmail.com> PGP Key: EEC09705