Roadmap for ldapmodule

[Federico Di Gregorio]

Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Michael Ströder's letter:
> Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > i would better like to keep code snippets and applications (lappo)
> > requiring ldaplib under ldaplib.
> 
> IMHO packages of the module distributions should be kept small.
> Well, simple demos could be integrated into the modules but not
> larger applications.
> 
> > else an user will download the C
> > module and demos only and then write us the the demos do not work...
> 
> A simple table listing which modules are needed by a specific demo
> or application helps with that problem. It's just a matter of proper
> docs and it's really simple in this particular case (there won't be
> so many different demos and applications, I guess).

true. it is fine for me. (as long as David agrees.)

> > > 6. Distributing with Python's standard lib (low priority):
> > 
> > i don't agree on that.
> 
> Any good reason why?

not really. but maintaining a package inside a bigger one, that works
on multiple platforms not widely available to the software author is
not an easy task. but that's David's problem, right?

ciao,
federico

-- 
Federico Di Gregorio
MIXAD LIVE System Programmer                           fog at mixadlive.com
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact        fog at debian.org
          The reverse side also has a reverse side.  -- Japanese proverb