[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: OpenLDAP 2.5
- To: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
- Subject: Re: OpenLDAP 2.5
- From: Michael Ströder <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:14:50 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1261552491; l=460; s=domk; d=stroeder.de; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References: Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH; bh=bU99ItifZHJe8OALhiabqpTv2aA=; b=Ks+wnmLSXD/rfhJ/3r2bqvnufpxYdeFWJLq7xG4J/kZII6AnWvLjrot6iFMEkfsbABb pEpxTsFsuUBpOo7fKaMOOaPaBw1LnAuijHuVRd3GyHGMhwWaZpm6e9M7+6s7T2XZhEXGG yEWUAZ6ks73ICsVLUC6Zc98P4H39hFJxeEs=
- In-reply-to: <4B31913D.email@example.com>
- References: <4B31913D.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:184.108.40.206) Gecko/20090823 SeaMonkey/1.1.18
Howard Chu wrote:
> We should also walk thru the Software Enhancement requests and decide
> which to accept and which to reject. Currently there are 37 outstanding.
1. I'd hope to see DIT structure rules and name forms to be implemented.
2. If support for slapd.conf is completely dropped would it also be possible
to implement a more client-friendly back-config schema which does not have to
be backward compatible to slapd.conf?