On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 14:44 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
>
> >>> ----
> >>> coming from the guy who last week decried that it seemed the intent of
> >>> Fedora was to be a self-contained distribution, this is extremely
> >>> laughable.
> >> You mean they have to complete the inclusion of every possible package
> >> in the universe before making their own clients talk to their own
> >> server? Otherwise I don't how this relates to anything. And is there
> >> some reason not to expect 'Fedora Directory Server' to not be part of
> >> ... Fedora?
> > ----
> > I suppose if that was an area of concern, I would be monitoring
> > Fedora-development list
>
> Without really knowing anything about it, I'll make a wild guess and
> assume that it is somehow related to having a java component that
> doesn't work with the broken imitation-java that fedora has insisted on
> shipping for years. And rather than make it easy to install a compliant
> java that another company has made available for free, they don't
> include it at all. But I could be wrong about that...
----
you may be correct, I simply don't know. FDS does require java
IIRC...not to run but to use the GUI consoles provided. If they were
hell bent on distributing FDS with Fedora, they could probably remove
the GUI consoles. They could replace them with something else. Is that
what this is about? Another java rant?
----
>
> > ----
> >>> It is impossible to know where you are coming from.
> >> I'd like something that works... Do you really prefer an LDAP
> >> authentication client that won't work with the server as shipped in the
> >> same distribution?
> > ----
> > do you mean that it's not working? I must be doing something wrong then
> > because my main server (RHEL) is the base ldap server and it's handing
> > the authentication for all the Macintosh, Windows and Linux computers on
> > my LAN including the Fedora 7 & Fedora 8 clients.
> >
> > Does your question imply without configuration ("as shipped" reference)?
>
> Yes, but it relates to not having matching configurations for clients
> and servers as much as shipping one without configuration.
----
each of the networks that I have installed LDAP as an authentication
daemon has a vastly different setup including one where I am using FDS
instead of openldap (approximately 8).
LDAP is simply a set of protocols. There is no set usage for doing
anything at all. In fact, what it was designed to do represents an
insignificant percentage of its current actual usage.
The nice thing that is provided by RHEL and of course Fedora, is that
the tools that handle the various bits (i.e. padl and pam stuff) is well
handled and easily configured.
You seem to think that there should be some pre-configuration performed.
Describe it then. If you could describe it, you could bugzilla an RFE.
We might have something to actually discuss.
----
>
> > Heck, not even Windows does that (Neither server nor client will
> > operate/authenticate without configuration). Configuration details is
> > what job security is about ;-)
> >
> > Again, if you think something is wrong with the way they distributing
> > the software, bugzilla an RFE
>
> Having made it work, you are the expert... Do you think it could be
> done better? Or is there some reason that the configuration used in one
> place can't work in another?
----
I'm happy with the way it is, otherwise I would have filed an RFE
Craig
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
