On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 21:39 +0200, Daniel Dehennin wrote: > Here is my final (for now ;-)) patch, I added some requirement > informations (minssf and secprops) for some mechanisms but do not set > them automatically when selecting mechanisms.
Thanks a lot for your patch. I have not yet had the time to look at it in detail though. I did notice that you have a separate ldap-sasl and ldap-sasl-mech question. I think it would be nicer (to follow the change in configuration to get rid of use_sasl) to have only one question which asks about the mechanism with a value of "No SASL" or something equivalent. I think it is a good idea to keep the te debconf questions close to configuration options. This is probably also clearer to the user and limits the number of questions. Perhaps it is also a good idea to move the password question after the SASL one or maybe even move the binddn question after SASL. If we keep the binddb question before SASL is it safe to skip the SASL question if the binddn is empty (is there any reasonable configuration with an empty binddn while using SASL)? Anyway, thanks again for all your effort on the SASL bits. -- -- arthur - adej...@debian.org - http://people.debian.org/~adejong --
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
