Re: back-sql maintenance

[masarati@aero.polimi.it]

> I have been using OpenLDAP on Linux for a number of years and am now
> evaluating a transition towards the back-sql backend but I understand this
> is no longer actively maintained. Would somebody on this list be so kind
> as to go into some of the reasoning behind this lack of development? Is
> there now a better alternative for LDAP integration with an existing SQL
> schema? Is the methodology of back-sql seriously flawed? Is it just a lack
> of volunteers? I have encountered a possible bug and, having the
> resources, would like to help maintain this SQL backend if that is the
> appropriate thing to do.

Back-sql has never been intended as a general-purpose storage, but rather
as a means to allow to expose existing SQL databases in LDAP with minimal
effort (essentially related to creating few tables with meta-information
(e.g. ldap_entries, ldap_oc_mappings, ldap_attr_mappings and so).

I am no longer heavily involved in LDAP, as my job took different
directions; still, I like to volunteer for the project, but since I had to
reduce the amount of time I can dedicate to it, I decided to rather focus
on proxy backends and new features; back-sql is no longer one of my
priorities.

There is no formal attribution of responsibilities to developers; however,
I've been the only active "committer" to back-sql for years.  Unless
someone else wants to take this over, back-sql is essentially
unmaintained.  This does not necessarily means it will be abandoned: if
you send a patch, it will probably be evaluated; however, if it doesn't
solve an existing issue because it needs further work, it will likely
remain dangling forever.

If you volunteer, welcome.  It's not me who decides who can become a
committer, I guess you first need to show that you are able to find your
way at least through the portion of code you intend to work on most, so 1)
show us that there's something broken and 2) show us that you can fix it.

p.