On 2018-10-24, Markus Rosjat wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> it seems to get sasl working with ldap is a lifetime task. Sad thing I
> had it working but only after adding/deleting packages of the specific
> versions of cyrus-sasl and I dont know which you really need to get it
> working in a "clean" se
Have you looked at OpenBSD's ldapd(8) instead of openldap?
It supports SASL PLAIN auth, according to the 6.3 man page.
I don't currently use SASL but otherwise have found the config of ldapd
to be much simpler than slapd.
Yes, last time I had set up OpenLDAP with SASL it was fragile and
required
Hi there,
it seems to get sasl working with ldap is a lifetime task. Sad thing I
had it working but only after adding/deleting packages of the specific
versions of cyrus-sasl and I dont know which you really need to get it
working in a "clean" setup. So to all the people out there who are
ru
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 07:29:45AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Uv Pzaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-20 23:12]:
> > I wonder why OpenBSD packages (i.e. openldap-server-2.3.24.tgz) still
> > uses ldbm as database backend especially since the OpenLDAP folks are
> > stating that this is no good an
I still want to push this little points directly from the OpenLDAP faq:
* back-ldbm is /obsolete/ and /should not be used/.
*As a historical note, the back-ldbm code is a direct descendant of the
original University of Michigan code. The age of the code and its
byzantine data structures were beco
Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Dave Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-21 08:26]:
>> Henning Brauer wrote:
>>> * Uv Pzaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-20 23:12]:
I wonder why OpenBSD packages (i.e. openldap-server-2.3.24.tgz) still
uses ldbm as database backend especially since the OpenLDAP
* Dave Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-21 08:26]:
> Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Uv Pzaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-20 23:12]:
> >> I wonder why OpenBSD packages (i.e. openldap-server-2.3.24.tgz) still
> >> uses ldbm as database backend especially since the OpenLDAP folks are
> >> stating th
* Bryan Irvine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-21 09:01]:
> Older versions of bdb went bad a fairly regular basis. I had DB's go
> corrupt as often as once a day under older verson of OL using bdb.
> This hasn't been a problem for a while though. I havn't had a db go
> bad in 2 years, even after powe
On 5/20/07, Dave Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Uv Pzaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-20 23:12]:
>> I wonder why OpenBSD packages (i.e. openldap-server-2.3.24.tgz) still
>> uses ldbm as database backend especially since the OpenLDAP folks are
>> stating that this is
Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Uv Pzaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-20 23:12]:
>> I wonder why OpenBSD packages (i.e. openldap-server-2.3.24.tgz) still
>> uses ldbm as database backend especially since the OpenLDAP folks are
>> stating that this is no good any more:
>> (http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/
* Uv Pzaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-20 23:12]:
> I wonder why OpenBSD packages (i.e. openldap-server-2.3.24.tgz) still
> uses ldbm as database backend especially since the OpenLDAP folks are
> stating that this is no good any more:
> (http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/756.htm) and not bdb o
I wonder why OpenBSD packages (i.e. openldap-server-2.3.24.tgz) still
uses ldbm as database backend especially since the OpenLDAP folks are
stating that this is no good any more:
(http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/756.htm) and not bdb or hdb.
By the way I'm just wondering i don't think i have
12 matches
Mail list logo
