Kostik Belousov <[email protected]> writes: > Yes, the question of maintanence of the OpenLDAP code in the base > is not trivial by any means. I remember that openldap once broke > the ABI on its stable-like branch.
That's irrelevant. Our own renamed subset of OpenLDAP would only be used by our own code, primarily nss_ldap and pam_ldap, and would be updated when and only when we decided that it needed updating, not every time a new OpenLDAP release shipped. We did this successfully with expat (libbsdxml), and there's no reason why it wouldn't work with OpenLDAP. > Having API renamed during the import for the actively-developed > third-party component is probably a stopper. I am aware of the rename > done for ssh import in ssh_namespace.h, but I do not think such > approach scale. The entire point of ssh_namespace.h is to minimize the amount of changes required. Actually, when I say minimize, I mean "reduce to zero", and the file itself is autogenerated, except for lining up the columns, which I do manually. I don't know why you think it doesn't scale. I don't think we have anything to gain by writing our own LDAP library. Firstly, new code means new bugs, and this is security-critical code. Secondly, any LDAP client library we wrote would have to have an API that closely paralells OpenLDAP's; otherwise, we would also have to rewrite nss_ldap and pam_ldap. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [email protected] _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
