[Pdns-users] pdns/ldap funding, how much?
nmilas at admin.noa.gr
Thu May 5 22:08:18 UTC 2011
On 6/5/2011 12:04 am, Christopher Wood wrote:
> 2) There are people in the PowerDNS community developing& maintaining it.
> 3) There are end-users with support contracts that need it, or there are
> end-users willing to fund the development directly.
> I don't know if anybody has asked how much #2 or #3 cost. How much money are we talking about, as a rounded figure per month or per year?
> After all, if enough people want this then perhaps it makes sense to spread the cost.
Thanks for extending the previous thread re LDAP backend (I don't know
if it would probably be better to continue that one).
Since #2 (which does not entail costs) has not yielded any positive
outcome (no developer has responded or acted positively) yet, we
probably could view cost more specifically. So specific costs (per item)
should be specified for:
1. Correction of bug mentioned in Ticket 260 (the most important one
currently). [Unless PowerDNS developers agree to my thoughts - see
2. The addition of Notify functionality (Master Operation). [Ticket:
* With this opportunity I would like to ask whether
pdns_control notify should work with LDAP backend because I
(only recently) read in the documentantion (fixes for
v2.9.20): "LDAP fixes as reported in ticket 37
(http://wiki.powerdns.com/projects/trac/ticket/37), fixed in
which maked pdns_control notify work."
So, does this mean that:
pdns_control notify domain
pdns_control notify-host domain ip-address
(I haven't tried it, but here:
I concluded that pdns_control notify would not work, and no
one corrected me... - I might try it now!)
3. General maintenance of code of the backend (e.g. speed
optimization etc) - if / where needed.
4. Addition of DNSSEC support to the backend.
5. Other suggested/needed additions.
But we are also waiting for a reply on an already one-week-old request I
> So, considering the above, I would like to underline that LDAP
should NOT become unmaintained:
> (i) It would not be difficult to include at least the proposed patch
> for Ticket #313
> in one v3.0 build so we can install and test.
> (ii) I would encourage PowerDNS developers to only provide a
> solution for Ticket #260 (= #323) (this time/effort should be very
> low) which is the minimum to keep LDAP backend in production status
> in the new versions...
So, let's wait (hopefully not for long) for some (hopefully positive)
feedback from PowerDNS developers. Probably they've been very busy these
days, because I don't see them being very active in the mailing list
recently. But things will surely change (favorably)! After all, we trust
More information about the Pdns-users