[SSSD] local vs LOCAL?

David O'Brien davido at redhat.com
Thu Nov 5 01:06:56 UTC 2009


Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 11/04/2009 06:17 AM, David O'Brien wrote:
>> Should I be upper- or lower-casing "local" in the doc, or doesn't it 
>> matter? It seems to be spread evenly both ways in the wiki, and I'd like 
>> to standardize.
>>
>> thanks
> 
> Currently, the domain that stores the local users can be called anyway
> you like it just has to specify "id_provider = local".
> 
> The confusion probably originates from the fact that in old versions of
> SSSD, there was no "id_provider = local" setting available and we used
> to special-case this domain by the name "LOCAL". For this historical
> reason, it is still called LOCAL in the examples on the wiki and the
> example config, but there is no hard rule.
> 
> 	Jakub

ok, thanks.

For clarity, I'd like to use LOCAL in the docs, to avoid possible 
confusion with any other local databases by writing things like "this 
info is kept in the local database". Using "LOCAL" will make sure we all 
know what we're referring to.

Any concerns please let me know.

-- 

David O'Brien
Red Hat Asia Pacific
+61 7 3514 8189

http://freeipa.org/page/DocumentationPortal
http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/ipadocs.git


"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when
one will do."
     Thomas Jefferson



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list