On Hën , 2004-05-17 at 14:15 +0200, Søren Hansen wrote: > On søn, 2004-05-16 at 22:25 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote: > > > Would it perhaps be a good idea to split the ntlm related stuff into a > > > library to be maintained and packaged separately? That way, the openldap > > > <-> evolution interdependency is gone, which would be nice for the > > > different distributions. > > What interdependency? > > Currently, to use the connector, you need a pactched version of openldap > that depends on evolution to do the actual NTLM stuff (at least thats > what the doc says). That's a interdependency in my book. :-) True, I was > speaking under the inpression that the connector would go into the stock > Evolution. Just substitute "connector" for "evolution" in my original > post, and we should agree, right? No. The code that actually does the NTLM bits is in "connector". The patch sets up hooks to allow connector to do some things at a lower level than the OpenLDAP API typically allows. > > It is required > > for the evolution-exchange package, because, I believe, we use LDAP to > > connect to the Exchange address book on the server. This requires NTLM > > authentication, which is not in stock OpenLDAP, and thus requires the > > NTLM patch to be applied. > > I can't remember off the top of my head where I read it, but I believe > that the patch to OpenLDAP merely puts hooks into it to call the actual > NTLM functions inside Evolution. These are the functions that I'm > proposing be moved outside of Evolution so that an NTLM-enabled version > of OpenLDAP wouldn't depend on Evolution. Feel free to create a patch to OpenLDAP that implements the entirety of NTLM authentication in OpenLDAP itself, and submit it upstream. I don't disagree that this would be a good thing to do. However, I don't think any of the hackers has time to do it. I don't know how long it would take though. Of course, we would still depend on some patch to OpenLDAP for Evolution Exchange to work properly. So, in the end, it effects me very little, since I will have to build a patched OpenLDAP anyway, for some time at least. > > I would agree that the patch needs to go upstream into OpenLDAP, but > > doing so would not remove any dependency on it for Exchange support. > > Oh, no. I don't expect Evolution to stop depending on OpenLDAP. Just the > other way around. OK. OpenLDAP doesn't depend on Evolution. Evolution Exchange depends on a specific patch to OpenLDAP to be able to do NTLM authentication. This patch does not require anything in Evolution Exchange to actually work. However, it is useless without connecting the hooks up to code that does the necessary authentication work. This is not an interdependency. -- dobey
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part