389-devel November 2012

389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

7 participants
21 discussions

please review: Ticket 395 - RFE - 389-ds shouldn't advertise in the rootDSE that we can handle a sasl mech if we really can't
by Mark Reynolds 05 Dec '12

05 Dec '12

https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/395 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/395/0001-Ticket-395-RFE-389-… -- Mark Reynolds Red Hat, Inc mreynolds(a)redhat.com

1 1

clarification on dn normalization
by Ludwig Krispenz 29 Nov '12

29 Nov '12

Hello, i would like to get comments on a problem related to dn normalization. In 389 it is possible to create entries, where their dn only differs in the number of spaces inside the value of the rdn attribute, eg: ldapsearch ..... -b "dc=example,dc=com" "cn=user two" dn dn: cn=user two,dc=example,dc=com dn: cn=user two,dc=example,dc=com Note the the search filter was did contain only one space, also attemping to add a new cn value differing in the number of spaces fails. [ludwig@elkris perf]$ ldapmodify ..... dn: cn=user two,dc=example,dc=com changetype: modify add: cn cn: user two modifying entry "cn=user two,dc=example,dc=com" ldap_modify: Type or value exists (20) So on the attribute level, attribute value normalization maps all variants to a single space, which I think is correct. In my opinion this should also apply to the use of an attribuet in the dn. If you try to add the second entry above in OpenLDAP the result is: ldap_add: already exists(68) And, although I have no DSEE instance available, DSEE also does not allow adding these two entries. It is a bit cumberome to find exactly in the RFCs what is the expected behaviour, but I think in the string prep description there is a step for removing insignificant space and to me it would be reasonable to apply the same normalization to an attribute if it is used in a dn as when used just as aregular attribute. Regards, Ludwig

3 5

please review: Ticket 216 - Disable replication agreements
by Mark Reynolds 29 Nov '12

29 Nov '12

Just made a schema update for winSync agreements https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/216 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/216/0001-Ticket-216-disable-… -- Mark Reynolds Red Hat, Inc mreynolds(a)redhat.com

1 0

please review: Ticket 393 - Change in winSyncInterval does not take immediate effect
by Mark Reynolds 27 Nov '12

27 Nov '12

https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/393 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/393/0001-Ticket-393-Change-i… -- Mark Reynolds Red Hat, Inc mreynolds(a)redhat.com

1 1

please review ticket 20 - allow automember to work on entries that have already been added
by Mark Reynolds 27 Nov '12

27 Nov '12

Fixed error logging. https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/20 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/20/0001-Ticket-20-Allow-auto… -- Mark Reynolds Red Hat, Inc mreynolds(a)redhat.com

1 2

please review ticket 518: dse.ldif is 0 length after server kill or machine kill
by Ludwig Krispenz 23 Nov '12

23 Nov '12

https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/518 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/518/0001-Ticket-518-dse.ldif… Thanks, Ludwig

1 0

please review ticket 349 nsViewFilter syntax issue in 389DS 1.2.5
by Ludwig Krispenz 21 Nov '12

21 Nov '12

https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/349 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/349/0001-Ticket-349-nsViewFi… Thanks, Ludwig

1 0

please review: Ticket 337 - improve CLEANRUV functionality
by Mark Reynolds 20 Nov '12

20 Nov '12

This has been reviewed and acked, but wanted to officially present the patch https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/337 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/337/0001-Ticket-337-improve-… -- Mark Reynolds Red Hat, Inc mreynolds(a)redhat.com

1 0

please review ticket 394 - error deleting a specific userpassword
by Mark Reynolds 19 Nov '12

19 Nov '12

https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/394 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/394/0001-Ticket-394-modify-d… -- Mark Reynolds Red Hat, Inc mreynolds(a)redhat.com

1 2

Please Review : Decreasing MAX Replication Retry time
by Divya Ravikumar 19 Nov '12

19 Nov '12

Hi All, I need to reduce the max Replication retry time for my customer requirement I have raised a enhancement request with fedora(Ticket 525). As an immediate fix I have reduced the value of PROTOCOL_BACKOFF_MAXIMUM variable in repl5_prot_private.h from 300 seconds to 15 seconds. I find no impact other the max retry time limit getting reduced to 15 seconds(which is my actual requirement) . Does anyone see any potential flaw happening in replication due to this change. Thanks in advance. Regards, Divya.R

2 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

389-devel November 2012