Hi, >That would be great. Are you on IRC? #debian-edu is a good way to >coordinate such things. :)
Yes, I am Natureshadow on IRC and I have been in the channel for some time. I am wondering whether a reimplementation of ldap2bind that does not depend on ldap2zone would be a better approach than keeping patching that thing. I will produce a patchset (against Git) for the stuff I'd like to see, and do a reimplementation to see which comes in better. We (at Teckids) have moved our DNS zones to LDAP and I found that ldap2bind is the only way of managing that that does not drive you insane. The ldap2dns schema is horrible, backends using LDAP directly like in PowerDNS make implementing DNSSEC unnecessarily complicated (or impossible) and that's all far from satisfying. ldap2bind and ldap2zone look a bit historic, though, and getting it to work is guess-work and assumes a lot of things. Fixing this would enlarge the patchset in Debian and I do not consider that a good thing for a wishlist item. Reimplementing ldap2bind and ldap2zone, keeping it compatible as a drop in replacement, seems better at that point. -nik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
