Subject: Re: USE_LDAP vs. USE_OPENLDAP
To: Quentin Garnier <cube@NetBSD.org>
From: Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/16/2004 14:10:34
This makes me think about all the SSL settings we have, too. Why not have a
single and homogeneous USE_SSL variable, and remove all other that are specific
to packages (*_USE_SSL)?
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:52:23 +0200
Quentin Garnier <cube@NetBSD.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I noticed there is an inconsistency with the use of USE_LDAP and
> USE_OPENLDAP in pkgsrc.
> Only USE_OPENLDAP is defined in bsd.pkg.defaults.mk.
> A few packages have their own LDAP setting, namely the Postfix ones,
> pine, the Samba ones, and heidmal and proftpd, but for those last two it
> is commented out.
> Even though the way the two variables are used doesn't reflect this,
> they have different meanings, USE_OPENLDAP referring to a specific
> implementation of LDAP. It would be justified for a package that has
> LDAP capabilities, but doesn't necessarily depend on openldap, to define
> USE_LDAP, and concurrently USE_OPENLDAP.
> Since openldap is the only LDAP library used by USE_LDAP packages, it
> won't change anything in a near future if we go on the all USE_LDAP or
> all USE_OPENLDAP roads.
> I'd prefer using USE_OPENLDAP, there might be an actual use for USE_LDAP
> Also, for postfix, pine and samba, I think they should respect
> USE_OPENLDAP instead of having their own setting. That way,
> 'USE_OPENLDAP=yes' is a way to turn on LDAP support for a host.
> Quentin Garnier.
Julio M. Merino Vidal <email@example.com>
The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/