openldap-bugs

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

1 participants
21001 discussions

Re: (ITS#6247)
by Kurt＠OpenLDAP.org 15 Aug '09

15 Aug '09

Daniel, While I understand you to have both some IPR concerns and technical concerns with what Ando proposed, I will only concern myself to the IPR issues. Thank you for updating your contribution to provide the required notices. I have provided guidance to Ando on how to create a work derived from your submission which, I believe, mets the terms of the license, the OpenLDAP Public License, you granted. In particular, I provided him guidance on how to properly "retain your copyright statement and notices". Presuming your notices are properly retained, I see no IPR issue here in the project accepting your contribution and/or Ando's derived work, and the Foundation distributing either or both. I do regularly review commits to our source repository to ensure IPR issues are adequately addressed, but do feel free to raise any issue you see in how we handle materials which you have copyright interest in. Beyond that, I leave it to the Project to determine the technical suitability of these contributions and what, if any, modifications should be made prior to inclusion in OpenLDAP Software. Given your license grant, the Foundation sees no obligation to seek further permission from you and hence will not seek additional permission before redistributing your work, with or without modification. If it was your intent to require those redistributing your work, with or without modification, to obtain some additional permission from you, please immediately advise us that your copyright statement and notice do not reflect your intentions. If immediately advised, we will try to honor your intentions. Otherwise, we will continue to assume, as we do now, that your copyright statement and notice reflect your intentions at the time of your contribution was offered. With that, I leave determination of the technical suitability to the Project. Regards, Kurt

1 0

Re: (ITS#4730) Overlay that generates operational attributes to support GUI interaction
by masarati＠aero.polimi.it 15 Aug '09

15 Aug '09

> HI! > > I've added support for 'allowedAttributesEffective' in web2ldap recently > which > works with AD. I tried this overlay but it seg faults with recent OpenLDAP > version. Any chance to get this back on the radar? Not *now*, possibly shortly. p.

1 0

(ITS#6256) segfault in syncrepl_add
by jonathan＠phillipoux.net 15 Aug '09

15 Aug '09

Full_Name: Jonathan Clarke Version: RE24 and HEAD from today OS: URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/jonathan-clarke-syncrepl-20090815.patch Submission from: (NULL) (88.164.187.72) syncinfo_free attempts: sie->si_cookieState->cs_ref-- Although si_cookieState may be NULL. When adding a syncrepl consumer (either through slapd.conf or online via cn=config), if the syncrepl config line causes a parse error, syncinfo_free is called and makes slapd segfault. Other paths through syncrepl_add may cause this too. The patch above corrects this.

1 0

Re: (ITS#6225) GSSAPI support for client library (fixes)
by mimir＠samba.org 15 Aug '09

15 Aug '09

--fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:20:46PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote: > mimir(a)samba.org wrote: >> Full_Name: Rafal Szczesniak >> Version: Stable (2.4.16) >> OS: GNU/Linux >> URL: http://www.samba.org/~mimir/gssapi-bugfix.diff >> Submission from: (NULL) (67.51.54.234) >> >> >> This is a bugfix patch for OpenLDAP's gssapi support. >> > One of these patches appears to duplicate ITS#6092. As the original=20 > author of this code, could you also take a look at #6091 and #6093? Yes, will do. Sorry about late reply, but first I was travelling and then I went for a holidays. cheers, --=20 Rafal Szczesniak Samba Team member http://www.samba.org Likewise Software http://www.likewise.com --fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKhpcNHvdfyv3qiKkRAnssAKCaoT2CpqhPfHkmx1sATZBQREFgIQCfVKz6 L6ab8DXdz3XlCQqrRsul6Cw= =MklT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fUYQa+Pmc3FrFX/N--

1 0

(ITS#6247)
by daniel＠pluta.biz 15 Aug '09

15 Aug '09

I've just removed four unnecessary Debug() statements (to get rid of the warnings during the build). ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/daniel-pluta-now-090815-2.tgz Please note there are still only dummy values assigned as OIDs.

1 0

(ITS#6247)
by daniel＠pluta.biz 15 Aug '09

15 Aug '09

I've just removed four ugly Debug() statements. ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/daniel-pluta-now-090815-2.tgz BTW: There are still only DUMMY-Values assigned as OIDs.

1 0

(ITS#6247)
by daniel＠pluta.biz 15 Aug '09

15 Aug '09

Dear Pierangelo, (dear Kurt), first of all my special thanks belong to both of you for your contribution to the on going discussions. Secondly I want to take the opportunity just right now to clarify that I do not agree to your idea or suggestion to extend the copyright in direction of a dual-portion-copyright statement. Based on my analysis of your surprisingly fast submitted code sample I came to the following conclusion and justification regarding my decision above: Last but not least I would have appreciated it if you would have contacted me *before* changing the code and not to mention my copyright notice. Thanks Kurt for your intervention. Besides this, as time, discussion and development has continuously moved on (even before your kind of "uncoordinated emergency submit") it seems to me that your sudden sample code does not cover any of my primary intentions already rudimentary contained in "now.c" and mentioned during the discussion: - there's no kind of inheritance of matching rules (all are directly associated to generalizedTime / CSN) - additionally the nowOrLater *and* the nowOrEarlier-rules are associated simultaneously to one and the same attribute (what makes no difference for single-valued attribute and thus could be done. On the other hand this leads to false positively reported valid but indeed invalid entries in case of multi-valued attributes - details see below). - you have not implemented any sort of possibility to allow the definition of separate "syntactically standalone" attributes (derived from generalizedTime/CSN, by independent syntax) to limit LE/GE filtering for both dead center attributes. (limiting search access using ACLs would obviously not work because the extensible search needs to be allowed). - multi-valued upper dead center timestamp attributes can not be handled correctly by your code. I have not investigated in deep but it is clear to me that in case of multiple values whereas one or more timestamp/CSN values are in the past, while at least one is in the future leads to the above mentioned false positive reporting in your code. - It seems to me that you have not tested the behavior of your suggested code properly in this short period of time (your tests have only seem to cover createTimestamp - which btw do not make any sense in concern to now.c's common intention in case the createTimestamp's value has not been faked ;-)). - as your code changes significantly changes the behavior and intention of now.c your submit also lacks any kind of documentation (besides the code, which I had to analyze first). In my opinion your submit sadly does not represent a very useful enhancement nor a functional extension (in the sense of the original goal of now.c) which could be integrated without major adaptations. That's the reason why I'm currently not see any reason to share my copyright notice. Nevertheless, as I've already told you before the discussion with you have always been very helpful for me so I've added you willingly to the acknowledgments section. I hope you understand my explanations and it will be fine for you. Of course I'm available and ready for further technical discussions ... Last but not least and from lessons learn: I think some kind of a formal specification (external to my head ;-)) would be very helpful to understand the design ideas, decisions as well as the new chances (and possible limitations) now.c introduces into LDAP. One or perhaps even more related I-Ds are currently a work in progress here at my side. I've uploaded a new version of now.c (as tgz because it contains various files, e.g. a sample schema in ldif- and schema-format for easier testing and perhaps as a basis for on going discussions). I hope I've correctly updated the IPR statement according my above expressed intention and according the needs of the OpenLDAP foundation. Kurt could you please have a look on it again? The updated version can be obtained from here: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/daniel-pluta-now-090815.tgz Thanks a lot and best regards Daniel -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [OFFLINE] Re: (ITS#6247) Datum: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:54:35 -0700 Von: Kurt Zeilenga <kurt(a)OpenLDAP.org> An: masarati(a)aero.polimi.it CC: daniel(a)pluta.biz Referenzen: <200908131112.n7DBCYIx025879(a)boole.openldap.org> <46026.93.149.38.235.1250177284.squirrel(a)www.aero.polimi.it> On Aug 13, 2009, at 8:28 AM, masarati(a)aero.polimi.it wrote: > Daniel (Kurt), > > (Note to Kurt: as there is no affiliation between Daniel and me, we > did > not coordinate anything, so we'll probably better do it now and > start from > scratch, instead of polluting the ITS). This needs to be done in two steps. 1) Daniel needs to address notices issues in his submission. 2) You need to address the notices issues in your derived submission. Daniel should follow the instructions I provide, and then you should follow the instructions I provide. These steps are simple, straight forward, and have a clear result. > I suggest Daniel evaluates the line I'm proposing No. This in no way fulfills the Foundation requirements. The line you are asking Daniel to evaluate is not a formal notice. You actually failed to met his license, which requires you to include a copy of his copyright notice in your work. You copied only an informal acknowledgement, not his copyright notice and license statement. > and, based on the file I > submitted, formalizes a definitive patch with appropriate copyrights > and > submits it along the guidelines of the OpenLDAP foundation. Your submission doesn't met the guidelines of the Foundation as it also doesn't include a notice of origin nor asserts your copyright, and worse, it failed to met the copying requirement Daniel placed on his submission (that his notice be included in copies).

1 0

Re: (ITS#4730) Overlay that generates operational attributes to support GUI interaction
by michael＠stroeder.com 14 Aug '09

14 Aug '09

HI! I've added support for 'allowedAttributesEffective' in web2ldap recently which works with AD. I tried this overlay but it seg faults with recent OpenLDAP version. Any chance to get this back on the radar? Ciao, Michael.

1 0

Re: (ITS#6253) sizelimit is enforced before applying local filters with a translucent overlay
by masarati＠aero.polimi.it 13 Aug '09

13 Aug '09

Fixed in HEAD; please test. Thanks, p.

1 0

(ITS#6255) translucent remote data overrides local in filter
by masarati＠aero.polimi.it 13 Aug '09

13 Aug '09

Full_Name: Pierangelo Masarati Version: HEAD/re24 OS: Linux x86 URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (93.149.38.235) Submitted by: ando Consider data as set up by test034; the remote server contains an entry "uid=danger,ou=users,o=translucent" with "cn=danger", while the local database contains the same entry with "cn=henry". Searching for "cn=danger" will return the local entry, whose "cn" is "henry" and not "danger", and thus does not match the search filter. p.

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