Re: compilation error

[Joe L. <jl...@op...>]

BTW -- can anyone post to the list the most recent patches (Konstanin's)

I'll grab them soon. I'll be connected to the net every other day for a
bit, and the connection is so slow.. no web surfeing for me.

As to the message, you have valid points. From my standpoint, the problem=
s
require further research, so any reply would be less than adequate at thi=
s
stage..


On Thu, 24 May 2001, Michael Str=F6der wrote:

> Joe Little wrote:
> >
> > you'll notice that 1.2.x will slowly be unsupported/unavailable.
>
> OpenLDAP 1.2.x is actively maintained. See the recent 1.2.12 release
> a couple of days ago.
>
> > If nothing else, the OpenLDAP 2.x patches should like become
> > proper to the source tree so that users can use any modern system.
>
> Unfortunately your patch for linking python-ldap against OpenLDAP
> 2.0.x breaks some existing python-ldap code (deref, alias options)
> without giving extra functionality. Look into Konstantin's patch
> which is a little bit more complete regarding LDAP options.
>
> We already had this discussion on-list and off-list several
> times. Up to now *nobody* raised his virtual hand saying "I will do
> it, maintain it for at least a couple of months and write
> documentation". David is not available for working on it at the
> moment.
>
> Although I personally don't like a SWIG approach I already made
> suggestions how I could contribute to a SWIG-based low-level LDAP
> API by writing a nice Python wrapper above it. This means I'm really
> willing to put my time into this. I'm still waiting for at least one
> serious response from the SWIG crowd saying "Yes, I will do it!". I
> had a short look at the swig-ldap code posted by Sascha but could
> not compile it on my box.
>
> The argument that OpenLDAP 2.x is more modern does not stand for its
> own.
> Solaris developers could argue that Solaris already ships with
> Netscape/Mozilla SDK which is quite incompatible to the OpenLDAP 2.x
> libs - but thread-safe. Which way to go? My question regarding which
> SDK to choose was not answered by anybody here yet. It was not even
> discussed at all!
>
> Just to show you one example how detailed problems are:
> Today I experienced that OpenLDAP 2.0.10 has a slightly different
> behaviour regarding referrals with Konstantin's python-ldap patches
> than OpenLDAP 2.0.7. If you actually don't have to deal with these
> kind of problems it's far less hassle to stick to the OpenLDAP 1.2.x
> libs until one of you really bites the bullet and does the heavy
> work.
>
> I repeat myself: A couple of patches will not fit the bill because
> otherwise people will complain that it's immature and unusable.
>
> Ciao, Michael.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-LDAP-dev mailing list
> Pyt...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/python-ldap-dev
>