From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E6239618C
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 12:27:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8562F2604F
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 12:27:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 12:27:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 23E4645CC9
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2023 12:27:52 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <04161079-db6c-7cae-0689-856cd7b61cb9@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 12:27:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/109.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
References: <20230117142037.847150-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230117142037.847150-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.536 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -1.149 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
 information. [ldap.rs]
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-ldap 0/6] introduce proxmox-ldap
 crate
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:27:53 -0000

Am 17/01/2023 um 15:20 schrieb Lukas Wagner:
> This patch series adds the new `proxmox-ldap` crate. The crate is mostly based on
> `src/server/ldap.rs` from [1].
> 
> The main reason for breaking this out into a separate crate/repo is to make it easily
> reusable from PVE/PMG via perlmod -- at some point in the future, all
> products could use the same LDAP implemenation.

from a (not too deep) review: looks OK, but I'd rather see it hosted in the
proxmox supporting rust crate "mono repo".

Can you please sent a v3 that bases is on that repo and has Wolfgang's minor
comments addressed?