On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 15:09 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 08:29:48AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-18 at 09:46 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >
> > I'm all for generic shared code, but then it would sound like even
> > LDAP
> > provider for instance supports the dynamic updates..
>
> This would be a positive feature imo.
>
Yes, but I was trying to say that given their provider-agnostic names,
the options might confuse the user into setting them in an LDAP provider
and expeciting them to work, while in reality only AD and IPA would be
implemented.
I think it should a generic provider and AD and IPA should just have
different defaults, like with many other things.
> > also the ipa_
> > options are already there and we should support them anyway.
>
> Yes but that is easy we can alias the old configuration options onto the
> new ones for the IPA backend.
OK, what would you suggest would be documented in manpages, then? Only
the new options with IPA manpage also carrying a note that also the old
options are supported for backwards compatibility?
Probably the right way to go, yeah.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York