4 ms·
>b) feels like a weird choice to drop the openldap-server packages but not the openldap-clients package. Are they going to provide a replacement for the OpenLDA
by hyc_symas 8y ago
>b) feels like a weird choice to drop the openldap-server packages but not the openldap-clients package. Are they going to provide a replacement for the OpenLDAP client libraries eventually as well? Is there even a good alternative (ie. API compatible and replacements for all the command line utilities) to openldap-clients?
They have no choice here, they use OpenLDAP's libraries. Mozilla/Netscape's own LDAP SDK has been unmaintained for more than a decade; it's abandonware.
- nineteen999 8y agoIf they have the resources to maintain their own directory server (389DS, Netscape or iPlanet, whatever it's called this year) surely they can manage to ship some client libraries of their own as well.
- hyc_symas 8y agoYou are correct, and that should tell you all you need to know.
- nineteen999 8y agoSo my impression is that the goal for Redhat here is to sell RHDS licenses, rather than rid itself of having to support OpenLDAP on the server side. But developing client libraries, which Netscape/Sun/389DS/Mozilla etc. all failed to do, is a bridge too far. Oh well.