On Jun 4, 2012, at 5:03 AM, Buchan Milne wrote: > The problem here is you are trying to mix and match. We've never defined > > an ABI, we defined an API. Extensions should be built in tree. > > If all extensions should be built in-tree, does that imply they should always > be distributed in-tree?
No. My point was more that building of extensions to slapd depend on exactly how slapd was built. That is, by "in-tree", I meant "with specific knowledge of the particular slapd source and how it was built". That knowledge doesn't require the extension to be "in-tree" but to have knowledge of the source and how it was built. > The requirement for a password-strength-checking plugin for ppolicy seems to > be quite common ... Yes. > > > Your mistake, me thinks, was asking the packager to distribute private > > headers... what you should have asked was for them to distribute the > > module built from within their OpenLDAP source tree. If they turn you > > down, then switch packagers or become one yourself (build everything). > > Guillaume already does that (and contributed to some of the work I describe > above), I expect he is trying to get rid of that burden. There's more than one way to rid yourself of your burdens. -- Kurt > > Regards, > Buchan
