LDAP be killing me. I need a good step by step

[Les Mikesell]

Craig White wrote:

>> Without really knowing anything about it, I'll make a wild guess and 
>> assume that it is somehow related to having a java component that 
>> doesn't work with the broken imitation-java that fedora has insisted on 
>> shipping for years.  And rather than make it easy to install a compliant 
>> java that another company has made available for free, they don't 
>> include it at all.  But I could be wrong about that...
> ----
> you may be correct, I simply don't know. FDS does require java
> IIRC...not to run but to use the GUI consoles provided. If they were
> hell bent on distributing FDS with Fedora, they could probably remove
> the GUI consoles. They could replace them with something else. Is that
> what this is about? Another java rant?

They are usability rants in all cases.

>>> Does your question imply without configuration ("as shipped" reference)?
>> Yes, but it relates to not having matching configurations for clients 
>> and servers as much as shipping one without configuration.
> ----
> each of the networks that I have installed LDAP as an authentication
> daemon has a vastly different setup including one where I am using FDS
> instead of openldap (approximately 8).
> 
> LDAP is simply a set of protocols.

So is X.  It makes as much sense to make an LDAP server default to doing 
nothing as it would to present a grey X frame when you log in.

> There is no set usage for doing
> anything at all. In fact, what it was designed to do represents an
> insignificant percentage of its current actual usage.

But there are clients in the distribution that expect certain configuration.

> The nice thing that is provided by RHEL and of course Fedora, is that
> the tools that handle the various bits (i.e. padl and pam stuff) is well
> handled and easily configured.
> 
> You seem to think that there should be some pre-configuration performed.
> Describe it then. If you could describe it, you could bugzilla an RFE.
> We might have something to actually discuss.

What did you do to make it so fedora clients could authenticate to the 
server?  I'd want that, plus samba authentication for the same set of 
users with the same passwords - and if Macs work with the same config, 
so much the better.  Would it break anything to ship with the schema you 
are using as the default?

>>> Again, if you think something is wrong with the way they distributing
>>> the software, bugzilla an RFE
>> Having made it work, you are the expert...  Do you think it could be 
>> done better?  Or is there some reason that the configuration used in one 
>>   place can't work in another?
> ----
> I'm happy with the way it is, otherwise I would have filed an RFE

How long did it take to get it to where you were happy with it, and why 
is it necessary for everyone to repeat that process?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com