James Carlson wrote: > Jeff Trawick writes: > >> James Carlson wrote: >> >>> Has this change (and the reason for it) been discussed with the team >>> that supports the native Solaris LDAP library? >>> >>> >>> >> It has been discussed to a small extent. >> > > That begs the next question: are they in substantial agreement with > the direction that this team is going? >
I've added Doug to the conversation to address that, or to suggest an alternate venue. > >> Note that this isn't so much a technical matter of how to get a couple >> of specific open source packages to interoperate with the native Solaris >> LDAP library as it is a long term consideration for how we accommodate >> existing open source applications on the platform. >> > > Indeed! That's exactly the issue. > > What is the long term strategy here? Do we get rid of the native > Solaris LDAP library? If so, then why hasn't it been marked > "Obsolete" with OpenLDAP as the replacement? > > If that's not the long term strategy, then what exactly is? Do we > have such a strategy for LDAP on Solaris? > > >> All of the LDAP-exploitive packages we know of which are either >> potentially in scope for inclusion with the OpenSolaris web stack or >> likely added by users already work with OpenLDAP; relatively few of >> these packages work properly with native Solaris LDAP. >> > > I don't think that means that system architecture ought to be > "designed" by having each individual project vote with its feet. > > That's a recipe for chaos. > > As it looks to the naive observer: * The system now has two alternative LDAP libraries. * Traditional Solaris stuff works with the native library just fine thank you. * Open source packages developed on other platforms work fine with OpenLDAP. ** Solaris users of these open source packages for some years now have been following instructions to build OpenLDAP and link Apache/PHP/whatever with OpenLDAP. We didn't follow the traditional advice with the web stack, and it hurts. Is this a "system architecture" issue?
