Roadmap for ldapmodule

Federico Di Gregorio fog at
Thu Jul 27 12:14:10 CEST 2000

Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Michael Ströder's letter:
> Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > i would better like to keep code snippets and applications (lappo)
> > requiring ldaplib under ldaplib.
> IMHO packages of the module distributions should be kept small.
> Well, simple demos could be integrated into the modules but not
> larger applications.
> > else an user will download the C
> > module and demos only and then write us the the demos do not work...
> A simple table listing which modules are needed by a specific demo
> or application helps with that problem. It's just a matter of proper
> docs and it's really simple in this particular case (there won't be
> so many different demos and applications, I guess).

true. it is fine for me. (as long as David agrees.)

> > > 6. Distributing with Python's standard lib (low priority):
> > 
> > i don't agree on that.
> Any good reason why?

not really. but maintaining a package inside a bigger one, that works
on multiple platforms not widely available to the software author is
not an easy task. but that's David's problem, right?


Federico Di Gregorio
MIXAD LIVE System Programmer                           fog at
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact        fog at
          The reverse side also has a reverse side.  -- Japanese proverb

More information about the python-ldap mailing list