Hi, Darren J Moffat p??e v po 21. 12. 2009 v 13:56 -0800: > Lukas Rovensky wrote: > > I believe that all the new Mozilla LDAP 6 libraries should be marked as > > "private" to Samba in this PSARC. Until there is a funding to integrate > > and support them they cannot be "public". > > That is generally not the acceptable stance. In this particular case > given the history of the Mozilla LDAP libraries in Solaris going back > many more years I think this is even more unacceptable. > > The risk of having multiple versions of the LDAP libraries dragged into > the same process (Samba in this case) is quite high. > > I strongly encourage the project team to find away so that the Mozilla > LDAP 6 library is made common (ie a public taxonomy) for all to use - > that doesn't mean supporting it themselves but working with the > appropriate groups to do so. If the project can't do that then I feel I > have to derail this case given the history of LDAP libraries in Solaris > and the fact it has already been stated by RPE (Revenue Product > Engineering) that they would rather see the Mozilla LDAP 6 library > replace the current (hacked up) Mozilla LDAP 5. > > Remember that derail does not mean your case is rejected just that it > needs a vote and ARC opinion. It may not even need a full review in > this case since the issue isn't with the core architecture of Samba but > an issue with a dependency. >
One remainder, for business reasons we had similar situation in Solaris 8 - sldaputil.so.5 - for Native LDAP II. Yes, libldap.so.6 for Nevada as public is more than needed, to solve a lot of troubles and limits. But for Solaris 10? Plus in reasonable timeframe? Best regards, Milan
