On 7/7/2011 2:56 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
Could you please give us LDAP-backend users an update as we are
closing to 3.0 release?
[Parenthetically, I feel I must also refer here to the issue with
pdns_control not working with LDAP backend to send Notify messages -
old Bug #37 (closed, but
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 09:12:25PM +0200, bert hubert wrote:
(SNIP)
If you make a script that sets up LDAP so that I can test, I'll see. But I'm
not going to delve into anything, you need to get me something that after
I've apt-get installed the ldap server it sets up a working powerdns
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Christopher Wood wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 09:12:25PM +0200, bert hubert wrote:
(SNIP)
If you make a script that sets up LDAP so that I can test, I'll see. But I'm
not going to delve into anything, you need to get me something that after
I've apt-get installed the
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 08:47:01PM +0200, Sten Spans wrote:
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Christopher Wood wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 09:12:25PM +0200, bert hubert wrote:
(SNIP)
If you make a script that sets up LDAP so that I can test, I'll see. But I'm
not going to delve into anything, you
On 15/5/2011 12:47 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
I saw the 2193 tarball. I'll try to compile and test it tomorrow
(Monday).
I am having a hard time trying to compile it. I installed (from CentOS
repos) boost:
boost-1.33.1-10.el5
boost-devel-1.33.1-10.el5
but I was getting:
checking
I think you need boost =1.34, the default version in CentOS 5 is not
enough.
On Mon, 16 May 2011 11:39:38 +0300, Nick Milas wrote:
On 15/5/2011 12:47 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
I saw the 2193 tarball. I'll try to compile and test it tomorrow
(Monday).
I am having a hard time trying to
On 16/5/2011 12:50 μμ, Imre Gergely wrote:
I think you need boost =1.34, the default version in CentOS 5 is not
enough.
Thank you. I thought 103400 meant v1.03.4 but it seems you are right,
it obviously means v1.34.
So, I installed (from the EPEL repo) packages boost141 and
Hi Nick,
You need to use the --with-boost= option with ./configure and tell it
where to find the includes and libraries (.ie --with-boost=/usr/local)
Best regards,
Ralf
On 16-5-2011 15:10, Nick Milas wrote:
On 16/5/2011 12:50 μμ, Imre Gergely wrote:
I think you need boost =1.34, the
I must be dull or have a short attention span as I couldn't get 2193 to compile
in CentOS5. Worked just fine in Debian Squeeze though.
I also confirm that I see logs in syslog in local time.
Is there anything else that I can test while I have this working? I don't
actually have 3500 Euros
On 14/5/2011 10:12 μμ, bert hubert wrote:
Well, you are proof that if you keep nagging you might get your way.
2193 has the fix for 313 suggested in that URL, it is building now.
Thanks, Bert. After all, you know that I am not just nagging, I have
invested *a lot* of time to prove the ldap
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 04:35:13PM +0300, Nick Milas wrote:
On 30/4/2011 11:00 πμ, Nick Milas wrote:
(i) It would not be difficult to include at least the proposed patch
for Ticket #313
(http://mailman.powerdns.com/pipermail/pdns-users/2010-September/007004.html)
in one v3.0 build
On 30/4/2011 11:00 πμ, Nick Milas wrote:
(i) It would not be difficult to include at least the proposed patch
for Ticket #313
(http://mailman.powerdns.com/pipermail/pdns-users/2010-September/007004.html)
in one v3.0 build so we can install and test.
(ii) I would encourage
Hi Bert,
Well, what can I say. Some of the largest DNS hosters in the UK use PowerDNS,
but perhaps they don't show up at UKNOF meetings?
Only one I`m aware of is/was PlusNet
(http://community.plus.net/blog/2008/03/13/about-the-plusnet-authoritative-dns-system/)
- and this follows on from
On 1/5/2011 12:58 πμ, Alejandro wrote:
HI Nick, The powerdns plugin for GOsa is finished, but the lack of
DNSSEC and the chance of drop this feature in future versions of
powerdns force the debian-edu project to choose bind in place of
powerdns for the next version of debian-edu.
...
I
On 30/4/2011 2:09 μμ, Angel Bosch Mora wrote:
there's also bindings for every coding language, so as you said anyone can
create their own tool.
I forgot to comment that you are very right in that. For example:
* PHP ldap bindings are great (we have used this API in our web
Nick.
If you search in the Internet, you'll find ample evidence that BIND / DLZ is
not a production solution. In terms of performance, it
Really glad someone started this thread as I was about to post something
similar.
Around 4-5 years ago when we started the ISP I looked into Bind
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 08:57:20PM +0100, Chris Russell wrote:
However, I was at the UK version of NANOG (UKNOF) meeting a few weeks
back, with a lot of people from ISP's and a few fairly senior people from
ISC and I asked the same question - not one recomended Power DNS with
Well, what can
On 23/3/2011 11:05 πμ, bert hubert wrote:
To clarify, PowerDNS development happens because one or more of the
following three reasons:
...
We also develop quite some things because, frankly, we find them cool
For LDAP, right now none if these things is the case. 1) We don't feel that
LDAP is
i agree with you in almost every aspect, but:
(d) lack of nice management tools that would allow (LDAP-stored) DNS
Record management using an easy and efficient GUI (which would also
enforce all needed checks when changing records etc.)
this is inacurate. LDAP has a lot of multi-platform
On 30/4/2011 2:09 μμ, Angel Bosch Mora wrote:
this is inacurate. LDAP has a lot of multi-platform front-ends, most
of them really customizable. there's also bindings for every coding
language, so as you said anyone can create their own tool.
Hi Angel,
You are partly right: yes, there are
On 15/4/2011 3:30 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
It's been 10 days (two business weeks) since your last update. Any
news for us anxious pdns/ldap users? :-)
Hi Udo,
I don't want to make you feel pressure, but it's been 16 days since we
last heard from you, and you were estimating to publish fixes
On 4/4/2011 12:44, Udo Rader wrote:
yes, I took a look on the issues and will put some work into fixing
them. From my POV #260 will be the first and most important thing to
deal with.
#317 looks trivial to fix, but as mentioned in the bug report, side
effect may exist.
...
ETA for the fixes
Hi,
yes, I took a look on the issues and will put some work into fixing
them. From my POV #260 will be the first and most important thing to
deal with.
#317 looks trivial to fix, but as mentioned in the bug report, side
effect may exist.
Before promising something I can't keep: yes, I will give
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 11:44:56PM +0200, Udo Rader wrote:
Before promising something I can't keep: yes, I will give my best to fix
the issues above and if things go well, it is not unlikely that either
I myself or one of our developers will invest some more time into
enhancements, but one
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
Help me, Udo Rader. You're my only hope
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
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
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
what about a community donation?
we could create a ticket with all people interested in this feature and how
much can they contribute.
i think there's more people than we thing using LDAP backend.
- Missatge original -
On 23/3/2011 11:05 πμ, bert hubert wrote:
Unless something
On 03/24/2011 11:36 AM, Nick Milas wrote:
On 24/3/2011 10:11 πμ, Angel Bosch Mora wrote:
what about a community donation?
we could create a ticket with all people interested in this feature
and how much can they contribute.
i think there's more people than we thing using LDAP backend.
On 03/24/2011 11:36 AM, Nick Milas wrote:
On 24/3/2011 10:11 πμ, Angel Bosch Mora wrote:
what about a community donation?
we could create a ticket with all people interested in this feature
and how much can they contribute.
i think there's more people than we thing using LDAP backend.
I
On 24/3/2011 12:55 μμ, Udo Rader wrote:
On the other hand, I perfectly understand Bert's POV on the issue, so I
what I can offer is taking a look on the open issues and maybe - if time
allows - putting some manpower to it, but I will first have a look at
the issues myself.
Thanks Udo,
As I
Sorry, the following was sent by mistake! Please ignore (the message is
already in the list, sent by Udo Rader)!
Nick
On 24/3/2011 1:03 μμ, Nick Milas wrote:
On 03/24/2011 11:36 AM, Nick Milas wrote:
On 24/3/2011 10:11 πμ, Angel Bosch Mora wrote:
what about a community donation?
we could
People,
Unless something happens, the LDAP backend will move to 'unmaintained'
status in the 3.0 release. Please read below for the how and why of this,
and what could possibly be done to change this.
The brief version is that someone will have to step up to maintain the LDAP
backend, or a
On 23/3/2011 11:05 πμ, bert hubert wrote:
Unless something happens, the LDAP backend will move to 'unmaintained'
status in the 3.0 release.
I think this attitude is the best. At least new admins planning DNS
server deployment *will know* that they should probably keep off LDAP
backend, since
35 matches
Mail list logo
