Hi Angel,
you might want to post feature requests (after double checking that the feature does not already exists) to the ITS (http://www.openldap.org/its/). This list is, as Howard made quite clear, not the right place.
Technical discussions can be made on openldap-technical.
Although it is far better to use proper LDAP libraries of a proper scripting language, I second your request for a don't base64 feature for all those admins who only use bash and pray instead of learning python or perl ;-)
But we should first discuss (on openldap-technical) how exactly such a feature should work (there are binary values that you don't want to have not base64ed).
And: it is even nicer to post a proper patch than a feature request to ITS
Cheers,
Peter
Am 23.07.2012 00:36, schrieb Angel Bosch:
De: "Howard Chu" hyc@symas.com This is the Developer's list. Your post is off topic and you should be ashamed of yourself for posting it here.
sorry for the noise, I knew this is the developer's list but after seeing all lists:
openldap-announce OpenLDAP announcements list openldap-bugs OpenLDAP bugs discussion list openldap-commit OpenLDAP source repository 'commit' list openldap-devel OpenLDAP development discussion list openldap-fortress OpenLDAP Fortress Discussion list openldap-technical OpenLDAP Technical Discussion list
I thought this belongs here because the nature of the discussion. If you want me to move this thread to another list, please let me know.
An option for LDIF wrapping was released in 2.4.24, 2011-02-10. You should be ashamed of yourself for asking for something that has already been available for over a year and a half.
I was using lastest Centos 6.3 packages and I assumed that there was no wrapping option, sorry about that. I see now that Centos is packaging 2.4.23. That was close. I'm really happy to see that it was finally included upstream and I can't wait to see it on packages.
I think rest of the complain is still valid, though. Decoding values i still an issue, and the suggestion of Michael that best way is learning other languages instead of using ldapsearch reaffirms my pov. How broken can be a simple search such as
FULLNAME=`ldapsearch -x -LLL "(uid=$1)" gecos | grep "^gecos: " | cut -d" " -f2- `
?
I really thought that we could start a healthy discussion about what and when a widely requested feature should be included. And judging from amount of posts/discussions I've found digging last weeks I'm pretty sure that isn't the opinion of a single undocumented obtuse sysadmin.
Instead of being double-ashamed because of my ignorance, I'm really proud of being part of the free software community and being able to address to people I admire and respect profundly. Even when I'm wrong and even more when I hardly find the right words to explain my boss that this "creppy guy with a violin" is the main developer of this huge project.
àngel
ps: english is not my native language, excuse my strange composition