From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1567 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Arvid E. Picciani" Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Design for extensible =?UTF-8?Q?passwd=5B/shadow=3F=5D?= =?UTF-8?Q?=20db=20support?= Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:38:57 +0200 Message-ID: <58cedf3a99d2a7eb61d861abdb8c1840@exys.org> References: <20120812053802.GA10971@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120812205643.GT27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120813135048.GX27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120813192833.GY27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1344886761 8745 80.91.229.3 (13 Aug 2012 19:39:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:39:21 +0000 (UTC) To: Original-X-From: musl-return-1568-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon Aug 13 21:39:20 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1T10Tq-0003ce-Es for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:39:14 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 26410 invoked by uid 550); 13 Aug 2012 19:39:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 26399 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2012 19:39:13 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120813192833.GY27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> X-Sender: aep@exys.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.5.4 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1567 Archived-At: On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:28:33 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > It reads it because ls -l prints the owners of files, and seeing a > username rather than a number is a lot more informative. Oh yeah. Now it would be really horrible to have it build up an ldap connection each time you do "ls". People do that in tight loops in scripts and expect it to have semi-guaranteed runtime properties. Can we at least have compile-time modules for this, so a system-designer can choose between different implementations? Maybe then having ldab in there directly isn't so bad at all. Hidding away the ldap problems in another daemon sounds like an attempt to make a one-size-fits-all. -- Arvid E. Picciani