openldap-bugs May 2026

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
196 discussions

[Issue 6462] DNS SRV records: ldaps ???
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 06 May '26

06 May '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6462 Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |TEST --- Comment #6 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- head: • ed30d827 by Ondřej Kuzník at 2026-04-16T02:13:15+00:00 ITS#6462 libldap: Add ldap_domain2hostlist_proto • 3ebfd3e8 by Ondřej Kuzník at 2026-04-16T02:13:15+00:00 ITS#6462 clients: Enable DNS SRV resolution for ldaps connections • 69c2a54b by Ondřej Kuzník at 2026-04-16T02:13:15+00:00 ITS#6462 slapd-dnssrv: Enable DNS SRV resolution for ldaps -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 8739] Better check for fsync on FreeBSD
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 06 May '26

06 May '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8739 --- Comment #4 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- mdb.RE/0.9: • 856c1fa8 by Howard Chu at 2026-04-15T20:04:30+01:00 ITS#8739 lmdb: No fdatasync on FreeBSD 11.0 and older mdb.master: • f759f0fc by Howard Chu at 2026-04-15T20:03:57+01:00 ITS#8739 lmdb: No fdatasync on FreeBSD 11.0 and older mdb.master3: • b2cfdd23 by Howard Chu at 2026-04-15T20:03:06+01:00 ITS#8739 lmdb: No fdatasync on FreeBSD 11.0 and older -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 8824] openldap-2.4.46/libraries/liblmdb/mdb_dump.c:136]: (style) Suspicious condition
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 06 May '26

06 May '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8824 --- Comment #2 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- mdb.RE/0.9: • 790035a2 by Howard Chu at 2026-04-15T18:18:39+01:00 ITS#8824 mdb_dump: cleanup check for MDB_SUCCESS mdb.master: • 331ba439 by Howard Chu at 2026-04-15T18:17:55+01:00 ITS#8824 mdb_dump: cleanup check for MDB_SUCCESS mdb.master3: • 5b3df476 by Howard Chu at 2026-04-15T18:18:44+01:00 ITS#8824 mdb_dump: cleanup check for MDB_SUCCESS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 8386] Small LMDB Documentation patch
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 06 May '26

06 May '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8386 --- Comment #4 from Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> --- mdb/RE0.9: • 9a647381 by Philipp Storz at 2026-04-15T17:32:58+01:00 ITS#8386 lmdb: be a bit more precise that mdb_get retrieves data in intro.doc mdb.master: • 7b5ffe1b by Philipp Storz at 2026-04-15T17:32:14+01:00 ITS#8386 lmdb: be a bit more precise that mdb_get retrieves data in intro.doc mdb.master3: • 06680017 by Philipp Storz at 2026-04-15T17:33:05+01:00 ITS#8386 lmdb: be a bit more precise that mdb_get retrieves data in intro.doc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 9011] add mdb_txn_flags()
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 04 May '26

04 May '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9011 Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #5 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> --- Added to git mdb.master3, mdb.RE/1.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

[Issue 9011] add mdb_txn_flags()
by openldap-its＠openldap.org 03 May '26

03 May '26

https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9011 --- Comment #4 from code(a)doriantaylor.com --- I was trying to determine why I got a notification for this bug, and I see now that it was because I filed a later one which was marked duplicate. Indeed, my remarks on issue 9188 constitute why a language binding would need to know if a transaction was read-only. In the Ruby bindings for LMDB which I now maintain, it's easy to find situations like db.transaction(true, &proc) # `true` enables read-only ...where `proc` itself does another transaction. I have semi-fixed this so read-only transactions "nest" by making the call a no-op if a transaction is already active, but it's still possible for read-write transactions to find their way inside read-only ones. So being able to create a `txn.readonly?` predicate would be useful for programmers downstream to better orient themselves. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs May 2026