[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

(ITS#5829) Missing moduleload doc. confusing chain/distproc/slapi.

Full_Name: Hallvard B Furuseth
Version: HEAD
Submission from: (NULL) (
Submitted by: hallvard

slapd.conf(5)'s moduleload description should say which filename a
module has: foo.so or foo.la.  (Or worse - is that different on
different OSes?  Windows, anyone?)

It should say where the standard installed modules are found.

Also that is a default modulepath which as far as I can tell from
strace includes the standard installation directory and the system
loader's standard load path.  And again, is it OS-dependent?  It
uses libtool's lt_dlopenext(), I haven't looked for what it does yet.

slapd.plugin(5) should mention that slapi itself is a module which
may need to be loaded.  And that it's "slapi.la", not "plugin.la".

The chain and distproc overlays are not found in <overlay>.la but in
back_ldap.la.  This should be documented.  I suggest a "moduleload
back_ldap.la" statement before all the other directives, with

However, even if documented, people will miss that.  One does't look
for doc about what one already "knows".

The simplest and maybe most informative fix would be to add dummy
modules which simply give an error message that the overlays are found
in the back_ldap module.

An alternative would be to move them to separate modules which depend on
back-ldap - and document their dependency on back-ldap.  More correct I
guess, but personally I don't see how it's an improvement.  That might
just be because I have had little to do with maintaining binary
distributions though.

A third would be to store a module registry where module names are
mapped to one or more module filenames to load.  Overkill?  More
general, but also more complex.