Re: Fedora Directory Server port to Debian ?
Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
> Having had experience dealing with OpenLDAP, I'd be happy to have
> just /anything/ else.
Not a universal opinion by any stretch; we used to run Netscape's
directory server, which I believe is the original technology behind FDS,
and were so happy to switch to OpenLDAP that I can't describe it.
OpenLDAP has been a dream. It does, however, require a fair bit of tuning
knowledge to make it work reliably.
> That being said, there's nothing wrong with having multiple
> implementations of the same thing -- on the contrary. We have multiple
> implementations of DNS-servers, MTA's, MUA's, database servers,
> browsers, user environments, and whatnot. Why not multiple LDAP servers?
No, I'm fine there. As I said, the question was asked out of curiosity.
However, I do think that something needs to be said in the package
description, if only "this is packaged as an alternative to OpenLDAP
because alternatives are good." (And there is more that one can say,
notably multi-master replication, although it's probably worth putting
some caveat on that so that people new to LDAP realize that it's a
controversial feature that some LDAP experts recommend against ever
using.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: