-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > But if you look at sambaAccount, it firmly ties 'uid' with 'rid', > > which conflicts your point below. > > No, it doesn't. 'uid' is 'username' in ldap-speak.
Yes, I know. And I meant it this way. I only assumed that under Unix we have a one-to-one mapping between username and numeric uid. > We should not store the 'gid' as part of SambaGroup. That really is > idmap's problem (which might refer back to exactly the same record - but > they need to be conceptually seperated). We need a STRUCTURAL object to attach to. Should we make the sambaGroupMapping structural? This would make it stand-alone, but we could then not tie it to a posixGroup. If we make it AUXILIARY, we need another STRUCTURAL object to attach to. Which one? Volker -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Key-ID D32186CF, Fingerprint available: phone +49 551 3700000 iD8DBQE+dvKGOmSXH9Mhhs8RAh5hAKCEiHOiamLuIMo6ILh3NgRZjo0XVACgkYIs gwcHufTHz9NTNx/LSLmti30= =cg3e -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
