tags 488635 + pending tags 488635 - wontfix thanks On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 12:20 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: > I raise the severity of this issue, because I strongly disagree with > your opinion on this.
No problem, as long as there are good arguments I'm willing to reconsider. > 1) It breaks functionality in a very common setup. Perhaps for group names it could be not very unusual but I would not call having spaces in user and group names very common, especially if you look at the history of *nix systems. > 2) It breaks compatibility with libnss-ldap, which does not have the > problem. Thats bad, as your solution is advertised as a replacement for > it, because of the better design. However to be standards-compliant, > while breaking functionaliy and compatibility is not really a good > thing. I don't find this a very convincing argument. nss-ldapd is not a 100% bug-for-bug compatible replacement for nss_ldap. nss-ldapd is missing a number of features (most of which aren't very well documented in nss_ldap). > Anyway: As Andreas already said: It is a common setup, which works > flawless with libnss-ldap (except the non-related flaws this has), so: > No it does *not* break stuff. Very well, I will apply your patch. Not because your arguments are very good but because it will not hurt nss-ldapd. The reason that there is a check is that nss-ldapd needs to be able to easily distinguish DN values from uid/gid values in the database (for uid<->DN translations). As long as a normal DN value is not a valid uid/gid value it does not cause problems. Thanks for your mail. -- -- arthur - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://people.debian.org/~adejong --
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
