Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> wrote: > I think FDS (RH Directory Services) will certainly be the > answer in the long run ... at least for PNAELV source based > distros like CentOS. We will provide it once it is released > by the upstream vendor in it's final form for the enterprise. > For now, OpenLDAP works OK ... as least for me. As I've been saying all along, for now, stick with the legacy, binary 7.1 releases. They are well proven and well documented. I think the "litmus test" for FDS is when Red Hat switches to it features and default programs (such as the admin tools) for its paid/SLA Red Hat Directory Server product (only providing any non-free stuff as "legacy"). Until then, CentOS users should feel free to use the binary 7.1 release or the new 1.0 release as they feel appropriate. I'm sure the 1.0 will have more of a direct upgrade path, although both are network-level compatible and can directly replicate (which is why they say 1.0 is like a "7.2" release). The lack of autoconf/automake and other source-level changes in the current 1.0 state really makes rebuilding a pain from SRPM. I'm sure their initial, main focus was getting as much open source as possible, including replacing the few components they couldn't have open sourced. Now that is done with the 1.0 release, at least to a point of compatibility and effective usability (especially the admin tools). So you can be sure a complete source set that builds from SRPM is next. -- Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org | (please excuse any http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)