On Jun 4, 2012, at 5:03 AM, Buchan Milne wrote:
The problem here is you are trying to mix and match. We've never defined
an ABI, we defined an API. Extensions should be built in tree.
If all extensions should be built in-tree, does that imply they should always be distributed in-tree?
No.
My point was more that building of extensions to slapd depend on exactly how slapd was built. That is, by "in-tree", I meant "with specific knowledge of the particular slapd source and how it was built". That knowledge doesn't require the extension to be "in-tree" but to have knowledge of the source and how it was built.
The requirement for a password-strength-checking plugin for ppolicy seems to be quite common ...
Yes.
Your mistake, me thinks, was asking the packager to distribute private headers... what you should have asked was for them to distribute the module built from within their OpenLDAP source tree. If they turn you down, then switch packagers or become one yourself (build everything).
Guillaume already does that (and contributed to some of the work I describe above), I expect he is trying to get rid of that burden.
There's more than one way to rid yourself of your burdens.
-- Kurt
Regards, Buchan