Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support separate backend for system users #61

Open
jof opened this issue May 8, 2015 · 2 comments
Open

Support separate backend for system users #61

jof opened this issue May 8, 2015 · 2 comments
Labels
Feature Request Enhancement to existing functionality or new functionality Help Wanted Assistance is required to resolve this issue

Comments

@jof
Copy link

jof commented May 8, 2015

I would like to get this cookbook into a state where it can be used to fully bootstrap a server and replication environment.
However, in its current form, it assumes some things about there being a single database and suffix.

For example, let's say I operate LDAP for example.com under dc=example,dc=com

If I want to bootstrap two nodes, replicating off of one another before loading in my data from a backup, replication can't exist, because the configuration is assuming that data is already loaded with a "syncrole" user.

Another approach I would like to have considered would be to setup a second back-ldif database and directory for system users, like for cn=syncrole, cn=config, etc.
It could be named "cn=system_users", for example, and into there we could create a user like "cn=syncrole,cn=system_users", independent of whatever BDB/HDB database content is being setup.

@acaiafa
Copy link

acaiafa commented May 8, 2015

I am working on a branch right now that will allow some of these features. The first commit and merge will be library resources for group and user. Those will be up shortly as I am just away for a few days. Once that is up we can add the the ability to launch replicas easily. I have that cookbook locally and will push that up shortly as well.

@cheeseplus
Copy link

Now that we've gotten things back in a working state I'm going to be looking at making this a bit more flexible.

@damacus damacus added Feature Request Enhancement to existing functionality or new functionality Help Wanted Assistance is required to resolve this issue labels Oct 24, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Feature Request Enhancement to existing functionality or new functionality Help Wanted Assistance is required to resolve this issue
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants