Re: ldap conversion strategy

From: John Smith (netman1_at_home.nl)
Date: 11/30/05

  • Next message: John Talbut: "killproc"
    Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:48:03 +0100
    To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
    
    

    On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:28:33 +0000
    Jamie Thompson <debian-users@jamie-thompson.co.uk> wrote:

    > John Smith wrote:
    > > Hi All,
    > >
    > > I'm in the process of designing a plan to move a lot of debian
    > > workstations (all with local users configured) to a ldap managed en-
    > > vironment and have some choices to make, some easy, some tough. Here
    > > one of the last category:
    > >
    > > In order to keep the users using applications they derive from
    > > their current local group memberships, I intend to recreate the local
    > > groups (luckily all according to the default Debian installer policy
    > > and uniquely identified by the same gid over all workstations) in the
    > > ldap tree.
    > >
    > > Should I create each and every group (audio with gid=29 for
    > > example) in the ldap tree with the same group id as locally defined?
    > >
    > > Will those two groups colide and if so, what is the best way
    > > to solve this collision?
    > >
    > > Sincerely,
    > >
    > > Jan.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Moving it all to LDAP is exactly what I did, but the approach has a few
    > problems. Basically, whilst it works just fine, any updates to the base
    > packages will be applied to the local files, not the ldap directory.
    > That means watching for updates and manually updating the ldap tree. Not
    > a biggie, but still a pain. In order to reduce the potential for
    > conflicts, I also disabled most of the local groups. Unfortunately,
    > updates also re-enable these too.
    >
    > It would be nice to have the base packages call scripts for
    > adding/removing the base users and groups that could be pointed at
    > scripts or something similar that could be made to service LDAP, but
    > that's not the way it currently works and I haven't the faintest idea
    > how to go about actually making it, nor in fact, the time to do so either.
    >
    > Good luck, it does work well in the end.
    >
    > - Jamie

    Thanks for your input Jamie, it sure helps a lot!

    Sincerely,

    Jan.

    -- 
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org 
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
    

  • Next message: John Talbut: "killproc"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: This is stupid - why cant I send to an Address List?
      ... If you want something that updates as new users are added who match the ldap ... > address list in exchange system manager) with one member for now ... > Outlook I can't send an ...
      (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
    • Re: ldap conversion strategy
      ... > and uniquely identified by the same gid over all workstations) in the ... > ldap tree. ... > example) in the ldap tree with the same group id as locally defined? ... That means watching for updates and manually updating the ldap tree. ...
      (Debian-User)
    • RE: Openldap update problem
      ... time to review them. ... Installing updates automatically seems like bad practice to me. ... > any of the linux machines. ... After some digging, I checked the LDAP ...
      (RedHat)
    • [SLE] [SuSE 9] Error writing youservers file
      ... updates with no problem. ... I authenticate against an LDAP ... but I don't know if that matters with the 777 permissions. ... Check the headers for your unsubscription address ...
      (SuSE)
    • Office XP standard update
      ... microsoft lets hope they are going though the problems ... Jamie ... Unable to check for updates on this computer. ... >I have updated before with no trouble, ...
      (microsoft.public.officeupdate)