[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: continue issue 2742 (ITS#2753)
If somebody wants to use sasl, has he REALLY copy "lutil_ldap.h" to
"include" dir? It is, IMHO, useless.
The same is the case of functions of ldif library.
It is not big problem for end users, but software vendor using OpenLDAP in
his product has to tell to customers to copy
this and this file...
The second problem is that if somebody developes on Windows, he does NOT
know about which headers are
public, so he doesn't realize possible prolems.
Can you, please, give reasons not to make headers in the "include" directory
Why aren't NO_PUBLIC headers moved to other (implementation) directories?
Sorry for disturbing you, but it may contribute to make better OpenLDAP.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: continue issue 2742 (ITS#2753)
> As intended. Other headers are private.
> At 02:31 AM 10/6/2003, email@example.com wrote:
> >Full_Name: Hung Pham Quang
> >Version: 2.1.22
> >OS: Linux
> >URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
> >Submission from: (NULL) (220.127.116.11)
> >On unix platforms, only 4 header files are installed: lber.h,
> >ldap.h, ldap_cdefs.h. So there is no way to use the methods declared in
> >lutil_ldap.h. The way to work around is to tell our custommers to copy
> >"lutil_ldap.h" to "include" directory. Is it an issue or a feature?