Henning Brauer(lists-open...@bsws.de)@2009.01.06 14:42:09 +0100:
> * Toni Mueller [2009-01-06 12:25]:
> > > openldap is still a piece of shit, but the ldbm backend is probably the
> > > sanest one.
> >
> > This pattern comes up often, but almost noone suggests an alternative
> > LDAP server packa
* dan-openbsd-m...@ourbrains.org [2009-01-16
19:38]:
> Henning Brauer(lists-open...@bsws.de)@2009.01.06 14:42:09 +0100:
> > I am not aware of any. Lack of options doesn't make openldap better.
>
> There is an option for people who have very basic LDAP needs - tinyldap
> from fefe.de. It's high q
Henning Brauer(lists-open...@bsws.de)@2009.01.06 14:42:09 +0100:
> I am not aware of any. Lack of options doesn't make openldap better.
There is an option for people who have very basic LDAP needs - tinyldap
from fefe.de. It's high quality but lacks many features at the time.
On Tue, 06.01.2009 at 06:27:17 -0500, ppruett-lists wrote:
> Actually a lot linux users suggest using mysql for the non relational
> authentication tables
> ;)
I knew you've got to be kidding!
--
Kind regards,
--Toni++
Hi,
On Tue, 06.01.2009 at 14:42:09 +0100, Henning Brauer
wrote:
> * Toni Mueller [2009-01-06 12:25]:
> > This pattern comes up often, but almost noone suggests an alternative
> > LDAP server package.
> I am not aware of any. Lack of options doesn't make openldap better.
agreed, but it makes ba
* Toni Mueller [2009-01-06 12:25]:
> > openldap is still a piece of shit, but the ldbm backend is probably the
> > sanest one.
>
> This pattern comes up often, but almost noone suggests an alternative
> LDAP server package.
I am not aware of any. Lack of options doesn't make openldap better.
--
Moving this to po...@. Reply-To/MFT set, please honour it.
On 2009/01/06 06:11, ppruett-lists wrote:
> > Here's an untested tarball of an updated openldap port, split into
> > directories for 2.3 and 2.4: http://spacehopper.org/tmp/openldap.tgz
>
>
>
> This issue has been kicked around for maybe t
> This pattern comes up often, but almost noone suggests an alternative
> LDAP server package
Actually a lot linux users suggest using mysql for the non relational
authentication tables
;)
Hi,
On Tue, 06.01.2009 at 01:08:27 +0100, Henning Brauer
wrote:
> I am using openldap with ldbm backend in an not exactly small
> installation for 9 or 10 years now. I have never ever experienced a
> broken database. never.
my last encounter with ldbm, a few years back, drove me to bdb really
f
> Here's an untested tarball of an updated openldap port, split into
> directories for 2.3 and 2.4: http://spacehopper.org/tmp/openldap.tgz
This issue has been kicked around for maybe two years, it has been on
the misc list before,
https://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2007/5/20/149
Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Philip Guenther [2009-01-06 00:40]:
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Claudio Jeker
>> wrote:
>> ...
>>> Any DB that needs human help after a crash is in my opinion a bad choice.
>> So that would rule out the ldbm backend, no? Last I checked the libc
>> btree code, a
* Philip Guenther [2009-01-06 00:40]:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Claudio Jeker
> wrote:
> ...
> > Any DB that needs human help after a crash is in my opinion a bad choice.
>
> So that would rule out the ldbm backend, no? Last I checked the libc
> btree code, a crash while writing out a
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Claudio Jeker wrote:
...
> Any DB that needs human help after a crash is in my opinion a bad choice.
So that would rule out the ldbm backend, no? Last I checked the libc
btree code, a crash while writing out a page split would corrupt the
subtree.
> If a server
On 2009-01-05, ppruett-lists wrote:
>
> So choices for those with older openbsd port of openldap with bdb flavor
> are:
> * don't upgrade ( bad choice)
> * upgrade to openbsd 4.4 or current using the official port and renter
> data storing in the obsolete backend ldbm (ughhh)
> * Or go ahead and
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 01:46:30PM -0500, ppruett-lists wrote:
>> >If your LDAP environment is anything at all like the majority I've
>> seen >you will not notice any difference whatsoever (except you'll be
>> free >from BDB corruption during a crash).
>>
>
> Yep since I am not write heavy the
For OpenBSD 4.4 and current the flavor "bdb" is broken on openldap
BROKEN=OpenLDAP 2.3 is incompatible with Berkeley DB 4.6
So, what to do? My experience is that compiling BDB and OpenLDAP
yourself isn't hard,
yep, I remember compiling apache back in the middle 90's
For security and la
>If your LDAP environment is anything at all like the majority I've seen
>you will not notice any difference whatsoever (except you'll be free
>from BDB corruption during a crash).
Yep since I am not write heavy then the non bdb could be okay,
but as an afore mentioned in this thread I am co
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:30 AM, P.Pruett wrote:
> For OpenBSD 4.4 and current the flavor "bdb" is broken on openldap
> BROKEN=OpenLDAP 2.3 is incompatible with Berkeley DB 4.6
>
> Most past articles have strongly suggested haveing openldap use "bdb"
> as its storage method. Seeing that even t
Damn, forgot to send my response to list:
Message-ID: <49624a88.3020...@raapid.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:59:36 -0600
From: tico
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "P.Pruett"
Subject: Re: OpenLDAP w/o bdb okay?
References
P.Pruett wrote:
For OpenBSD 4.4 and current the flavor "bdb" is broken on openldap
BROKEN=OpenLDAP 2.3 is incompatible with Berkeley DB 4.6
Most past articles have strongly suggested haveing openldap use "bdb"
as its storage method. Seeing that even the current port is not ready
to implemen
For OpenBSD 4.4 and current the flavor "bdb" is broken on openldap
BROKEN=OpenLDAP 2.3 is incompatible with Berkeley DB 4.6
Most past articles have strongly suggested haveing openldap use "bdb"
as its storage method. Seeing that even the current port is not ready
to implement OpenLDAP 2.4 su
21 matches
Mail list logo
