[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#3737) Patch to passwd backend
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
> What about having (inetOrg)person + posixAccount instead? My concern is that
> account + posixAccount does not allow some of the attributes previously
> present in back-passwd (e.g. sn, which was actually required by person) and
> thus could break existing deployments. person + posixAccount would only add
> attributes without breking the objectClass inheritance chain with respect to
> the currently released software.
That sounds like a good idea, and is the way that I should have done it.
> The posixAccount extras could be associated
> to the presence of a configure switch (and posixAccount could simply replace
> the uidObject class).
Are you saying that a configure option would select between returning
posixAccount and uidObject?
I suppose I should patch against HEAD instead of 2.2.26, as this is an
Dave Horsfall DTM VK2KFU email@example.com Ph: +61 2 8425-5508 (d) -5500 (sw)
Corinthian Engineering, Level 1, 401 Pacific Hwy, Artarmon, NSW 2064, Australia