Re: Openldap dependencies

On 8/14/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/13/05 23:09 CST: > > > The option --enable-dynamic passes the option -static to libtool when Sorry I meant --disable-dynamic! > > linking. This makes the executables installed by openldap link > > st

Re: Openldap dependencies

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/13/05 23:09 CST: > The option --enable-dynamic passes the option -static to libtool when > linking. This makes the executables installed by openldap link > statically against the libraries installed by openldap (libldap, > liblber, ...), though it links dyn

Re: Openldap dependencies

2.2 has proven itself. Is there any reason to change to 2.3? -- Archaic Want control, education, and security from your operating system? Hardened Linux From Scratch http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.o

Re: Openldap dependencies

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/12/05 22:04 CST: > Randy, will you also handle the dependencies change or should I? I'll go ahead and add it, if that is okay with you. I have done quite a bit of research about the various backends and can confirm your report of earlier. I do have a new

Re: Openldap dependencies

On 8/12/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/12/05 20:14 CST: > > > IMO, we shole stay with the "release that has demonstrated itself as > > being reliable in real world environments." > > > > 2.2.6. > > Thanks, Bruce. I will update the book accordin

Re: Openldap dependencies

Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 08/12/05 20:14 CST: > IMO, we shole stay with the "release that has demonstrated itself as > being reliable in real world environments." > > 2.2.6. Thanks, Bruce. I will update the book accordingly. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc

Re: Openldap dependencies

Randy McMurchy wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/12/05 16:07 CST: > > >>The OpenLDAP developers also recommend the same thing: >>. > > > Yeah, I had seen that, but it actually conflicts what they say in > the very previous FAQ ent

Re: Openldap dependencies

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/12/05 16:33 CST: > IMO, they agree with each other. Basically they say use General > Release for most. But be sure to atleast use the latest stable. I can't see agreement with the two statements they use. One says the 'release' version is good enough for g

Re: Openldap dependencies

On 8/12/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/12/05 16:07 CST: > > > The OpenLDAP developers also recommend the same thing: > > . > > Yeah, I had seen that, but it actually conflicts what they say

Re: Openldap dependencies

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/12/05 16:07 CST: > The OpenLDAP developers also recommend the same thing: > . Yeah, I had seen that, but it actually conflicts what they say in the very previous FAQ entry. I'll just wait and defer to whate

Re: Openldap dependencies

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/12/05 15:59 CST: > The book is currently at 2.2.24. Agreed (pretty easy to see). :-) What I meant was the download URL's would indicate we are using the 2.2.x 'release' version, which right now would be 2.2.27 > We have two options: > (1) Go with the st

Re: Openldap dependencies

On 8/12/05, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We have two options: > (1) Go with the stable release. In this case we should also use the > same timestamp versioned tarballs that they use. > (2) Go with the general release (currently 2.3.4). > > I have no particular preference, but i

Re: Openldap dependencies

On 8/12/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/11/05 23:41 CST: > > > * Release: For general use. Currently 2.3.4 & 2.2.7. > > * Stable Release: Currently 2.2.6. Proved stable thru general use. > > * Testing Release: Unstable. > > It looks like the

Re: Openldap dependencies

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/11/05 23:41 CST: > * Release: For general use. Currently 2.3.4 & 2.2.7. > * Stable Release: Currently 2.2.6. Proved stable thru general use. > * Testing Release: Unstable. > It looks like the release to follow as per the guidelines for other > packages is t

Re: Openldap dependencies

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/12/05 00:38 CST: > Grr. Me and my haste to click the send button. Should have been "since > bdb depends on java on my system". I need the bdb's java interface for > a personal project. So, now I am to understand you have Berkeley DB installed on your syste

Re: Openldap dependencies

On 8/12/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/12/05 00:28 CST: > > > FYI, I am trying to use gdbm instead of bdb in as many packages as > > possible to trim down on my dependency tree (since bdb depends on > > java). > > This I don't understand a

Re: Openldap dependencies

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/12/05 00:28 CST: > FYI, I am trying to use gdbm instead of bdb in as many packages as > possible to trim down on my dependency tree (since bdb depends on > java). This I don't understand at all. Berkeley DB does *not* depend on Java. -- Randy rmlscsi: [

Re: Openldap dependencies

On 8/12/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/12/05 00:13 CST: > > > The document states: "OpenLDAP's slapd primary database backend, BDB, > > requires Sleepycat Software Berkeley DB. If not available at configure > > time, you will not be able bu

Re: Openldap dependencies

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/12/05 00:13 CST: > The document states: "OpenLDAP's slapd primary database backend, BDB, > requires Sleepycat Software Berkeley DB. If not available at configure > time, you will not be able build slapd with this primary database > backend." Additionally, i

Re: Openldap dependencies

On 8/12/05, Tushar Teredesai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I read it as without BDB, one cannot have bdb as the primary database > backend; so one would have to choose another database backend such as > gdbm. I just finished a build that used gdbm instead of db (though > both were present on the sys

Re: Openldap dependencies

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/12/05 00:13 CST: > The document states: "OpenLDAP's slapd primary database backend, BDB, > requires Sleepycat Software Berkeley DB. If not available at configure > time, you will not be able build slapd with this primary database > backend." Additionally, i

Re: Openldap dependencies

On 8/12/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/11/05 23:41 CST: > > The book currently mentions that berkeley db is required for openldap. > > This is incorrect. It can also use gdbm instead of bdb. IMO, the > > dependency list should be changed to:

Re: Openldap dependencies

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/11/05 23:41 CST: > The book currently mentions that berkeley db is required for openldap. > This is incorrect. It can also use gdbm instead of bdb. IMO, the > dependency list should be changed to: > Required: bdb (recommended) or gdbm. On further review,

Re: Openldap dependencies

Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/11/05 23:41 CST: > The book currently mentions that berkeley db is required for openldap. > This is incorrect. It can also use gdbm instead of bdb. IMO, the > dependency list should be changed to: > Required: bdb (recommended) or gdbm. Make the change if

Openldap dependencies

The book currently mentions that berkeley db is required for openldap. This is incorrect. It can also use gdbm instead of bdb. IMO, the dependency list should be changed to: Required: bdb (recommended) or gdbm. If no switch is provided, openldap will link against bdb. To link against gdbm instea