https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8182
--- Comment #2 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
Dealing with this would need access to the attribute type in the other set
we're joining with so the literal 'canBrowse' could be normalised accordingly.
But the way set ACLs are parsed at the moment, there is no way to keep and
propagate this information. We might have to turn to a parser generator to get
an AST and annotate accordingly if this is needed. That would in turn make us
require YACC or whatever we chose.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7089
Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |IN_PROGRESS
--- Comment #7 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
I have created a patchset that attempts to address this and other ppolicy
related issues here:
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/77
Please review, test and let me know if this addresses the issue and if you have
any other comments.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8762
Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |IN_PROGRESS
--- Comment #10 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
I have created a patchset that attempts to address this and other ppolicy
related issues here:
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/77
Please review, test and let me know if this addresses the issue and if you have
any other comments.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |IN_PROGRESS
--- Comment #4 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
I have created a patchset that attempts to address this and other ppolicy
related issues here:
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/77
Please review, test and let me know if this addresses the issue and if you have
any other comments.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7788
Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |IN_PROGRESS
--- Comment #5 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
I have created a patchset that attempts to address this and other ppolicy
related issues here:
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/77
Please review, test and let me know if this addresses the issue and if you have
any other comments.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7788
--- Comment #4 from Clément OUDOT <clement.oudot(a)worteks.com> ---
I don't think this solves the issue. The problem is on entries that are not
linked to any password policy are updated by ppolicy overlay. Adding a
parameter in the password policy is not a good solution from my point of view.
The entry should never be updated by ppolicy overlay if no ppolicy definition
is applied to it.
Note that this bug was opened 6 years ago, I did not test recent OpenLDAP
versions.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7788
--- Comment #3 from Ondřej Kuzník <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
Hi Clément,
this should still be possible if you set a default policy with
pwdMaxRecordedFailure == 0, is there a reason this would not be appropriate
before we go changing the default behaviour?
Thanks,
Ondrej
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8888
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |TEST
Keywords|OL_2_5_REQ |
--- Comment #2 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> ---
Commits:
• 47974536
by Quanah Gibson-Mount at 2020-06-01T19:05:26+00:00
Issue #8888 - Change numbered list to Note format
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.