Comments on: Nagios-LDAP-3.2.0 Updated

By: Joe Baldwin

Joe Baldwin — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:19:54 +0000

I want to thank the blogger very much not only for this post but also for his all previous efforts. I found tech.chickenandporn.com to be greatly interesting.

By: PerfSys

PerfSys — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:17:56 +0000

Thank you for this patch! Good work!

for those who need LDAP simple authentication with that solution, take a look at updated patch here:
http://www.perfsys.com/files/nagios-3.2.0-ldap-auth.patch

Thanks again to author.

By: Sébastien Cramatte

Sébastien Cramatte — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:59:16 +0000

Hello,

I’ve just made a backport of nagios 3.2 fron debian unstable to debian lenny including allan’s ldap patch …

stay tunned ! I’m going to test it in depth today

cheers

By: Monitoraggio di rete con Nagios | Camiciusonline

Monitoraggio di rete con Nagios | Camiciusonline — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:59:14 +0000

[...] soluzione è stata implementata da un personaggio che ha un sito dal nome buffo, e che ha provato (a quanto ho capito) a committare il tutto nel master branch, in realtà senza [...]

By: allanc

allanc — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 00:40:26 +0000

The thing to consider is that not every user wants every feature that is currently present in the config space. As well, it’s not a significant amount of code to maintain, yet changes in the upstream require little updates all the time. It doesn’t hurt, and in the distributed cases, it’s very useful.

Finally, when there is a more standardized distribution, it can address a number of other problems that are being resolved by other means. A consistent way to share the same templates and such across 10 servers would be pretty cool.

I think, though, this patch would need to be addressed to help avoid restarts of the server — that seems to reset some clocks and states. I’ve got some ideas about that, but I’d like to see this fly first.

By: rb

rb — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:48:51 +0000

I kinda figured that upstream wouldnt really be too interested. if its not a feature people want, it just adds more code to maintain.

I’ll keep checking back for a 64bit RPM or .deb (or I’ll just make my own.)

thanks

By: allanc

allanc — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:54:17 +0000

Hi. Upstream acceptance requires user-demand-pull. Bear with me a sec:

I still have to create a Debian build; I’m sorry, I’ve been traveling (http://travel.chickenandporn.com/) and spending too much time on checkins, checkouts, of an airlines/air-travel nature than of a CVS/SVN nature

Sebastien has been looking into this; as well, I lost the ID of someone else interested in incorporating into his product (my last blogsite died in an embarassing and permanent way).

Upstream once replied “make it a module”, showing how they didn’t understand how invasive the config has to be to pick up the LDAP portion, while I did not want to mimick the updates to the upstream by copying out the existing code and copying all patches from upstream to the module.

So… it’s only by user-demand that this can be pulled into upstream. Long response to a short question, but perhaps you skimmed

By: rb

rb — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:53:02 +0000

do you know if upstream has any intention of including this functionality? I really hate breaking from standard repository packages (Debian in this case) and have yet to set up my own repo.