openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
21001 discussions

Re: Tranlucent Overlay (ITS#4889)
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 01 Jul '07

01 Jul '07

Gavin Henry writes: > True. Also, when I raised this ticket I wasn't part of the team, so I > can take on the man page fix if Hallvard doesn't have time. I have time, a manpage fix doesn't require testing:-) I'm just unsure what it should say. Pierangelo's latest message kind of implied that it can be used with older overlays but not newer ones. -- Regards, Hallvard

1 0

Re: Tranlucent Overlay (ITS#4889)
by ghenry＠suretecsystems.com 01 Jul '07

01 Jul '07

<quote who="Howard Chu"> > ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com wrote: > >> Depends on the time you have I suppose. >> >> I presume this isn't the case in 2.4? >> >> If so, maybe we should use your first sentence and refer them to 2.4? > > Referring people to 2.4 really isn't nice unless we have an actual release > to > refer them to. Which is another reason we need to get a 2.4 beta out ASAP. True. Also, when I raised this ticket I wasn't part of the team, so I can take on the man page fix if Hallvard doesn't have time. > Since it looks like no activity has occurred on closing out the remaining > devel > ITSs perhaps we should just freeze the current tree and roll out 2.4.5 > as-is. I think that would peak users interest again too. > -- > -- Howard Chu > Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com > Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ > Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/ >

1 0

(ITS#5035) Warning patrol
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 01 Jul '07

01 Jul '07

Full_Name: Hallvard B Furuseth Version: RE23, HEAD OS: URL: Submission from: (NULL) (129.240.202.105) Submitted by: hallvard #1. slapd/frontend.c:frontend_init() has the statement if ( slap_known_controls ) which is always true since slap_known_controls is an array. Maybe it should be if ( slap_known_controls[0] )? Except... controls.c says slap_known_controls[0] == NULL, which is not true - at least not at the time of the if-test above. What's that about? #2. The return value from op->o_callback->sc_cleanup() is never used. Should it be? I noticed because the pcache_op_cleanup() function does not return anything. What should it return? #3. RE23 struct sync_cookie.rid and struct syncinfo_s.si_rid are 'long', but are printed as 'int'. Could change the formats, but - any reason not to instead change their types to 'int' as in HEAD? I haven't looked at the HEAD syncrepl changes, so I don't know what other issues might be involved. #4. bconfig.c: Integer overflow in (1 << (sizeof(int)*8 - 1)) in slap_loglevel_get(). If anything else have been trusting signed integer overflow to resemble unsigned integers, it's time to cease that. The behaviour is undefined, and compilers make use of this fact to optimize. The loglevel functions are confused about types anyway. They collect masks in slap_mask_t, but the API uses an int for the masks. Either the API should use slap_mask_t or masks should be stored in (unsigned) ints. Not for 2.3, I think. #5. RE23 slurpd/st.c passes a time_t* to lutil_atol() which expects a long*. #6. ldbm_db_errcall() has wrong prototype for DB >= 4.3. Uses void(const DB_ENV *, const char *, char *) for DB_VERSION_X >= 0x040300, I guess it should copy back-bdb and (a) use const char* for last param and (b) test for DB_VERSION_FULL instead. Better late than never, I guess... #7. Other format bugs: - slapd/daemon.c: SLAP_EVENT_FD(i) is a ptrdiff_t printed as int. I take it SLAP_EPOLL_EV_PTRFD() should return a ber_socket_t like in its 'sl_sd' branch. - libldap/request.c: LDAP* given to %p should be cast to void*. #7. "Real" warnings drown in void* = function* warnings. Someday I want to go through the code and fill in (void*) casts. That doesn't make the code more standard, but can shut up compilers. I don't know if this should be imported to RE23 - maybe the chance of a new typo is greater than the chance of uncovering a bug:-)

1 0

Re: Tranlucent Overlay (ITS#4889)
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 01 Jul '07

01 Jul '07

hyc(a)symas.com writes: > Referring people to 2.4 really isn't nice unless we have an actual > release to refer them to. Which is another reason we need to get a 2.4 > beta out ASAP. Since it looks like no activity has occurred on > closing out the remaining devel ITSs perhaps we should just freeze the > current tree and roll out 2.4.5 as-is. I'm working through some new and a few old issues now, as it happens. But I don't see any reason why that needs to hold up a beta. There's always time for another beta. -- Regards, Hallvard

1 0

Re: Tranlucent Overlay (ITS#4889)
by hyc＠symas.com 01 Jul '07

01 Jul '07

ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com wrote: > Depends on the time you have I suppose. > > I presume this isn't the case in 2.4? > > If so, maybe we should use your first sentence and refer them to 2.4? Referring people to 2.4 really isn't nice unless we have an actual release to refer them to. Which is another reason we need to get a 2.4 beta out ASAP. Since it looks like no activity has occurred on closing out the remaining devel ITSs perhaps we should just freeze the current tree and roll out 2.4.5 as-is. -- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

Re: (ITS#5034) ldapsearch -E not in manpage
by zhangweiwu＠realss.com 01 Jul '07

01 Jul '07

在 2007-07-01日的 10:11 +0200，Hallvard B Furuseth写道： > zhangweiwu(a)realss.com writes: > > The -E option in ldapsearch is not mentioned in ldapsearch manual, > > It is now, since OpenLDAP 2.3.28 I think. Maybe you've got older > manuals than binaries, or multiple OpenLDAP installations. Yes you are right. 2.3.27 version on SuSE has this option missing in manual, but 2.3.30 on Gentoo Linux have this option in manual. My mistake on not checking carefully the newer version. Thanks for closing this issue.

1 0

Re: Tranlucent Overlay (ITS#4889)
by ghenry＠suretecsystems.com 01 Jul '07

01 Jul '07

<quote who="Hallvard B Furuseth"> > Gavin Henry writes: >><quote who="Pierangelo Masarati"> >>> In re23 slapo-rwm should not be used in conjunction with other >>> overlays; there is a number of reports about interoperability issues, >>> (...) >> That's strange though, as I merely followed the slapd-ldap(5) man page: >> (...) >> Maybe a man page patch is needed to stop others hitting this. > > I'll insert "OpenLDAP 2.3, rwm should not be used in conjunction with > other overlays." in slapo-rwm(5), slapd-ldap(5) and slapd-relay(5) > unless someone has a better idea. > > Or since Pierangelo followed up with > "it interacts poorly with other, more recent overlays." If you stop ^^ here, then you might as well use your first sentence. > should it be "...unless you know what you are doing" in the backend docs > and a more detailed instruction in slapo-rwm(5)? Depends on the time you have I suppose. I presume this isn't the case in 2.4? If so, maybe we should use your first sentence and refer them to 2.4? > > -- > Regards, > Hallvard >

1 0

Re: (ITS#5034) ldapsearch -E not in manpage
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 01 Jul '07

01 Jul '07

zhangweiwu(a)realss.com writes: > The -E option in ldapsearch is not mentioned in ldapsearch manual, It is now, since OpenLDAP 2.3.28 I think. Maybe you've got older manuals than binaries, or multiple OpenLDAP installations. -- Regards, Hallvard

1 0

Re: Tranlucent Overlay (ITS#4889)
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 01 Jul '07

01 Jul '07

Gavin Henry writes: ><quote who="Pierangelo Masarati"> >> In re23 slapo-rwm should not be used in conjunction with other >> overlays; there is a number of reports about interoperability issues, >> (...) > That's strange though, as I merely followed the slapd-ldap(5) man page: > (...) > Maybe a man page patch is needed to stop others hitting this. I'll insert "OpenLDAP 2.3, rwm should not be used in conjunction with other overlays." in slapo-rwm(5), slapd-ldap(5) and slapd-relay(5) unless someone has a better idea. Or since Pierangelo followed up with "it interacts poorly with other, more recent overlays." should it be "...unless you know what you are doing" in the backend docs and a more detailed instruction in slapo-rwm(5)? -- Regards, Hallvard

1 0

(ITS#5034) ldapsearch -E not in manpage
by zhangweiwu＠realss.com 30 Jun '07

30 Jun '07

Full_Name: Zhang Weiwu Version: 2.3.35-r1 OS: Gentoo Linux URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (59.61.17.143) The -E option in ldapsearch is not mentioned in ldapsearch manual, as I have tested on both openSuSE 10.2 and gentoo Linux. Unfortunately I don't know what it means but it seems to be pretty useful and enabled extended search filter like given in RFC 3876. Probably it means "extend filter", I guess. An example of -E as being discussed on openldap-software list: when I search with "cn=foo*", and entry has multiple "cn" values, like "cn=foo", "cn=joe", "cn=foobar", "cn=foobarX", "cn=bob", "cn=nofoobar" doing this search, it should only return "cn=foo", "cn=foobar", "cn=foobarX", $ ldapsearch -E mv="(cn=foo*)"

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs