On 03/25/2011 04:59 PM, Nick Milas wrote: > >> I wanted to quickly chime in on this. I agree with the decision to >> move the LDAP backend into "unmaintained" status and not fix these >> bugs right now. If there isn't a big enough community demand to supply >> the resources needed to maintain it, then there likely isn't a big >> enough demand to make it worthwhile anyway. >> > I feel I should repeat here Udo Rader's very thoughtful comment that: > "...(it) might just be that not all people interested in the LDAP > backend are actively following the mailing list"! In fact, it seems that > there are quite some people and organizations using it, and moving into > "unmaintained status" (I'll call it UMS) would be harmful to them. > However, since little interest has been explicitly exhibited, entering > UMS might ring a bell to some of the users/organizations to engage more > actively in its development (but it could push them to entirely drop > LDAP backend too!). But, of course, there is also Udo's offer to > possibly "offer some manpower", and, hopefully, LDAP backend might avoid > entering UMS after all (I hope we will hear some news from him some time > soon, after "having a look at the issues") by catching up with v3.0. :-)
Well, I promise, I won't vanish into the fog of war :-) In order to meet with some special requirements, I have already done some changes to the LDAP backend in the past, so the LDAP backend is not completely new to me. But as I said, I must first have a look at the open issues (which should be doable by the end of this week, given my timetable). Regards Udo Rader -- Udo Rader, CTO http://www.bestsolution.at http://riaschissl.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ Pdns-users mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
