On 10/05/2010 06:09 AM, Patrick Grieshaber wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Jakub Hrozek <
jhrozek@redhat.com
> <mailto:
jhrozek@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> On 10/05/2010 09:37 AM, Patrick Grieshaber wrote:
>> ldap_user_uid_number = sAMAccountName
>> ldap_user_gid_number = sAMAccountName
>> ldap_user_uuid = sAMAccountName
>
> Looking at the debug log, the user object could not be saved due to
> missing UID number. Using sAMAccountName does not sound like the best
> attribute to me, though..I think that with 2008, there was no need to
> fine-tune the UID/GID attributes and just go with the defaults.
>
>
>> I totally agree.. but with the config above plus this mods:
>> #ldap_user_principal = userPrincipalName
>> #ldap_user_uid_number = sAMAccountName
>> #ldap_user_gid_number = sAMAccountName
>> #ldap_user_uuid = sAMAccountName
>> #ldap_user_fullname = displayName
>
>> ... i receive the exact same debug output (--> no uid found). The reason
>> why i've set sAMAccountName as uid is because the value of this field is
>> always a unique employee _number_ in our active directory. It is strange
>> that the ldap entry about myuser is found, but the uid mapping is such a
>> problem... any other suggestion? Tried this for a couple of hours...
>
>
> Jakub