Le 15/12/2012 07:42, Howard Chu a écrit :
I don't think anyone is angry about the existence of cn=config, but rather about the potential removal of static configuration file support in an undefined future, as advertised in many places. And I don't think either anyone is convinced there is something you can't do with cn=config, rather than it just doesn't integrate with existing workflows. I'd personnaly add it's also more difficult to document and to understand, just see the various examples in the openldap manuel.Yes, this has been debated many times, and the debate is just as stupid and pointless today as it was the first N times. If your tools can only deal with static config files, fine. Use "slapcat -n0" and go your merry way. The cn=config functionality is a total superset of the static config file. Anyone who thinks the existence of cn=config in any way limits their freedom of operation is just being ignorant.
It would be more convincing to argue about the cost of maintaining two different configuration parsers rather than denying adverse position arguments.
-- BOFH excuse #362: Plasma conduit breach