urbanserj / entente

LDAP server for authentication via PAM

Entente

Entente is a LDAP server for authentication via PAM.

Usage

# entente [options]

Options

• -a --allow-anonymous

  Allow anonymous access.

• -b --basedn="dc=entente"

  Set base distinguished name.

• -s --service=entente

  Set PAM service name.

• -p port=389

  Set server port number.

• -i --bind=127.0.0.1

  Set bind address.

• -d --daemonize

  Run as a daemon.

• -w --workers=4

  Set number of workers (default: 4).

• -g --debug

  Enable debug mode.

• -h --help

  Print help information.

Dependencies

• libev
• libpam

entente's Issues

Checkout LightLdapd for a fork with full libpam-ldap/libnss-ldap support.

G'day,

I'm not at all sure how best to contact you so I'm using this issue. It might also be useful for other people looking at entente.

I thought you might be interested to see what I evolved your old entente code into. I've just done a first v1.0.0 release of LightLdap that you can find here;

https://github.com/dbaarda/LightLdapd

It includes enough LDAP protocol support to fully support libpam-ldap/libnss-ldap clients using TLS for security. It doesn't include the forked worker stuff your new entente has, so it might not be as fast for just doing pam auth, but it supports much more. In particular, it's ideal for networks with thin clients using nfs.

LightLdapd fork future name and license.

G'day again,

My fork has diverged fairly significantly from your 0.1.x branch with hardly any lines left that I've not touched in some way or another. I see your new master branch is radically different the 0.1.x branch I forked from. With entente you appear to be focusing on only providing fast auth support. With LightLdapd I'm starting to implement full rfc2307 support for both auth and nss_ldap. Given the divergence, I want to do two things with my fork that I want to check are OK with you;

1. Change the name everywhere from entente to lightldapd. Currently my fork still builds an entente binary with the same cmdline args as yours, but I want to change that. I will maintain you and entente in the credits as the inspiration and origin of lightldapd, but now it will be more clearly a different project.

2. I'm considering changing the license from MIT to GPL v3.0. Maybe I am overly optimistic, but I'm hopeful that when rfc2307 nss_ldap support is fully implemented, this will start to get wider use. If that happens, I'd like to encourage that any refinements or improvements are contributed back.

I hope this is OK by you. If you have objections or suggestions I'd be happy to discuss and resolve them.

Plan project future.

G'day,

Not sure what the best way to discuss possible directions to take this project, but here's an issue to track it. My objectives are roughly documented here;

http://minkirri.apana.org.au/wiki/LightLdapd

They involve extending entente fairly significantly beyond where it is now. In some ways entente is interesting as a bare-minimum ldap server, and adding extra features will undermine that. It might be better to keep entente lean and mean, and I can fork it into a new "LightLdap" project (with full attribution for its entente origins) with the extra features. I'll happily do whatever you would prefer.

In the short term, there are some cleanup stuff that will not bloat entente that I'd like to feed back in first. These include;

• Improve project documentation: Add minimal documentation based on templates in
  http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/projects/prjdocs/.
• Tidy code: Reformat using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indent_style#Variant:_1TBS by running it through 'indent --linux-style --swallow-optional-blank-lines --ignore-newlines'. Suggestions on preferred style are welcome.
  Do a general code audit and tidyup.
• Improve options: Make -b basedn argument work.

Before I do any of this, I'd like your approval and/or suggestions.