Forwarded for now, because Petter is not subscribed ...
----- Forwarded message from Petter Reinholdtsen
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:49:38 +0200
From: Petter Reinholdtsen
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [GOsa] DNS PDNS
[Cajus Pollmeier 2010-02-24]
> Hmm. We need the relativeDomainName to maintain the relationship
> between the zones. AFAIK. I don't know how much it will break in the
> complete termDNS class handling if you use it as an alternative DNS
> service plugin.
> This has to be estimated. You can put it into gosa-contrib, but I
> think it will need further hacking to get it integrated in a form
> like it is now. And I think it is a good idea if the plugins are
> replaceable - i.e. switch to powerdns and use it as if it is the
> bind one.
I've had a closer look at how powerdns uses LDAP, and based on this I
have an idea how Gosa need to change to get its DNS entries to work
with powerdns in its stict mode.
If the DNS objects created by Gosa include the domainrelatedobject
object class from the cosine LDAP schema , and the DNS FQDN in its
associatedDomain attribute (in addition to all the existing
attributes), I believe powerdns will work just fine.
I guess this is a very minor change to Gosa, and perhaps do not need
its own module, but perhaps a simple option to the existing module? I
have not looked at the Gosa source code, so I do not know how much
work it would be.
Powerdns is more struct on how it expect LDAP to be structured in its
tree mode, so I suspect it will be harder to get this one working.
Please keep me on CC, as I am not subscribed to this list.
----- End forwarded message -----