From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11725 invoked by uid 1002); 18 Jun 2003 18:18:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 26092 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2003 18:18:12 -0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:18:08 -0400 From: Donny Davies To: gentoo-dev Message-ID: <20030618181808.GA13853@breccia.escarpment> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev References: <871xxrb84d.fsf@nb-acer.better-com.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871xxrb84d.fsf@nb-acer.better-com.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [24.112.125.236] using ID at Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:18:11 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy violation possible (concerns openldap/nss_ldap) X-Archives-Salt: 47d9ce84-a26d-4890-900e-d014fc7c25cf X-Archives-Hash: 3eedfa61af18b076efc906a3d5b85bb3 [snip] >Have the changes described above to be reported as bug in nss_ldap? > >How can we ensure the integrity of conf-files used by more than one >package when different packages use different locations for the *same* >configuration (a bad thing anyway)? Martin, I've already filed one: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22906 Donny. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list