Re: Usage of private headers make building out-of-tree extensions painful

[Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

On Jun 4, 2012, at 5:03 AM, Buchan Milne wrote:
> The problem here is you are trying to mix and match.  We've never defined
> > an ABI, we defined an API.  Extensions should be built in tree.
> 
> If all extensions should be built in-tree, does that imply they should always be distributed in-tree?

No.

My point was more that building of extensions to slapd depend on exactly how slapd was built.   That is, by "in-tree", I meant "with specific knowledge of the particular slapd source and how it was built".   That knowledge doesn't require the extension to be "in-tree" but to have knowledge of the source and how it was built.

> The requirement for a password-strength-checking plugin for ppolicy seems to be quite common ...

Yes.

> 
> > Your mistake, me thinks, was asking the packager to distribute private
> > headers... what you should have asked was for them to distribute the
> > module built from within their OpenLDAP source tree.   If they turn you
> > down, then switch packagers or become one yourself (build everything).
> 
> Guillaume already does that (and contributed to some of the work I describe above), I expect he is trying to get rid of that burden.

There's more than one way to rid yourself of your burdens.

-- Kurt

> 
> Regards,
> Buchan