On 09.07.2013 17:47, Joe Orton wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:41:04AM -0400, Eric Covener wrote: >> I'm only concerned with someone who was getting by with LDAPReferrals >> OFF because the default gave their SDK an error. Now OFF would be >> fatal too. > > Just revisiting this... at least it seems clear that the docs do not > match the code here, in that "LDAPRerrals off" does something > surprising. So what are the choices? > > a) Jan's suggestion: offer a tri-state option on/off/default where > "default" is equivalent to current "off". > > b) change the docs so that it is not implied that "LDAPReferrals off" > really disables referral processing. > > c) ...something else? > >> But it's not so easy to do a separate "default" option because other >> parts of the code need to know if referrals are being chased. > > I don't follow that: if the intent here is retaining the current > behaviour of "LDAPReferrals off" for users who want that, then we can do > that easily.
Sorry I didn't yet really follow this discussion, but see PR 54358 for a maybe related issue (platform on which ldap referrals are not implemented in apr and default "On" leads to status 500). Regards, Rainer
