July 25, 2020 2:26 PM, "Éloi Rivard" <eloi.riv...@aquilenet.fr> wrote:
>> In my opinion, table-ldap from extras is doomed as it relies on a lib >> that >> is barely maintained and doing LDAP asynchronously is painful. > > Are you saying the support for table-ldap may stop in a near future? > Nope, the table API has been fairly stable for a long time so there is no extra work for me to leave it as is, it won't stop in a near future but I won't invest time in it as... I don't use it. >> I doubt the >> code will go much further than it currently does. > > However, would you still accept patches for ldaps support? > Yes, but I won't test these patches, I'll only review them and it will be easier to get them in if you find a couple users willing to test. >> If the table-procexec work I documented on my blog gets pushed to >> OpenBSD, >> then it will ease the writing of a table-ldap with a modern library. > > I will keep an eye on this then.
