Hi, > > > Is somebody working on porting/packaging FDS to Debian? > > > http://bugs.debian.org/315297 > > Bad package description. It tells me something I don't care about (namely > the acronym expansion of LDAP) and none of the things I do care about (why > would I want this package rather than some other directory server). As with many RFPs, it seems to have just been ripped from upstream. > > As far as I can tell, there is no-one packaging it yet, feel free to > > contribute, I imagine that it would be good to have this in debian. > > Out of curiousity, why? I can't think of any reason to run FDS when we > already have OpenLDAP, having had the experience of dealing with FDS's > technological predecessor. Is it just the multi-master replication that > people are interested in? Comparison: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/FAQ#How_is_Fedora_Directory_Server_different_from_OpenLDAP.3F http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Features http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/645.html http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/649.html I guess that would be a question for Maykel Moya and Ryan Lovett :) What is your reason for preferring FDS over OpenLDAP? Other reason is the marketing buzz surrounding FDS - "debian doesn't have the oh-so-great and recently freed FDS, oh well, looks like we use fedora". Also, see the last paragraph of this: http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/06/22/1543207&from=rss > (Whatever the answer is, assuming there is some compelling feature not > found in OpenLDAP, it should go into the package description.) Indeed. -- bye, pabs http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=Paul+Wise&comaint=yes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part