| 1 |
Martin Lesser wrote: |
| 2 |
--snipped-- |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> So the symlink was overwritten with the vanilla configuration what - in |
| 6 |
> our case - caused several applications which depend on ldap to not work |
| 7 |
> properly any longer. That was really bad. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> How can one prevent such an IMO unacceptable behavior of overwriting |
| 10 |
> config-files which are symlinks? Should this be seen as bug in |
| 11 |
> gentoo/emerge? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Have the changes described above to be reported as bug in nss_ldap? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> How can we ensure the integrity of conf-files used by more than one |
| 16 |
> package when different packages use different locations for the *same* |
| 17 |
> configuration (a bad thing anyway)? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but AFAIK /etc/openldap/ldap.conf is used |
| 20 |
by the openldap clients like ldapsearch ldapadd... whereas |
| 21 |
/etc/ldap.conf is for pam_ldap and nss_ldap from PADL. They shouldn't be |
| 22 |
the same file at all. Despite sharing some common directives such as |
| 23 |
HOST and BASE, im not sure if the pam_ldap/nss_ldap specific options are |
| 24 |
silently ignored by the openldap clienttools. If that is true, |
| 25 |
/etc/openldap/ldap.conf could be overwritten by pam_ldap/nss_ldap during |
| 26 |
install but not the other way round. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
kind regards Paul |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> Martin |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> -- |
| 34 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives