https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6938
--- Comment #4 from Matthew Hardin <mhardin(a)symas.com> ---
Hello,
Yes, I have confirmed that there are issues building OpenLDAP under MSYS2 with
--enable-ipv6. What environment are you building under?
Thanks,
-Matt
> On Apr 24, 2025, at 3:03 AM, openldap-its(a)openldap.org wrote:
>
> https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6938
>
> --- Comment #3 from Dhiraj Giria <dhiraj.giria(a)mitel.com> ---
> Hi Matt
> I have tried building OpenLDAP 2.6.9 version with flag enable-ipv6 flag for
> Windows environment, but failed to do so successfully. Is it a valid ticket?
> can you please confirm if we support openldap+ipv6 on Windows?
>
> Thanks
> Dhiraj
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are the assignee for the issue.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6938
--- Comment #3 from Dhiraj Giria <dhiraj.giria(a)mitel.com> ---
Hi Matt
I have tried building OpenLDAP 2.6.9 version with flag enable-ipv6 flag for
Windows environment, but failed to do so successfully. Is it a valid ticket?
can you please confirm if we support openldap+ipv6 on Windows?
Thanks
Dhiraj
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7981
OndÅ™ej KuznÃk <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://bugs.openldap.org/s
| |how_bug.cgi?id=10254
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7981
OndÅ™ej KuznÃk <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|CONFIRMED |IN_PROGRESS
--- Comment #5 from OndÅ™ej KuznÃk <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
https://git.openldap.org/openldap/openldap/-/merge_requests/763
Gone with another auxiliary objectclass but rereading the conversation, I guess
I'll adjust to use a subclass later.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10322
Issue ID: 10322
Summary: Retire 2.4 admin guide
Product: website
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: website
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: ondra(a)mistotebe.net
Target Milestone: ---
2.4 release stream has been dead for a while now however its Admin Guide is
still in place, we should remove it and possibly have links under it 301 to
admin26?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7901
requate(a)univention.de <requate(a)univention.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #1059|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7901
--- Comment #3 from requate(a)univention.de <requate(a)univention.de> ---
Created attachment 1060
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1060&action=edit
slapschema-continuemode-and-preserve-rc.patch
This extended version of the patch additionally preserves a non-zero return
code even in combination with the option "-c".
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7901
--- Comment #2 from requate(a)univention.de <requate(a)univention.de> ---
Created attachment 1059
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1059&action=edit
slapschema-continuemode.patch
If the last object checked by entry_schema_check() has a problem, then
slapschema returns the error code of that problem. But if there is a good
object check after that, then it returns 0. That is not ideal.
The tool offers the option "-c" to activate a "continuemode". The man page
states "Enable continue (ignore errors) mode" and it is a bit surprising that
the default behavior is different for the the return code of the main check.
Also, while the message `# (65) Object class violation: unrecognized
objectClass 'foo'` is output to stdout, the messages `67e293be UNKNOWN
attributeDescription "BAR" inserted.` are actually output to stderr. They seem
related, maybe it would be more consistent to output them to the same channel.
The attached patch just proposes to exit the check loop in case
entry_schema_check() fails and the option "-c" was not given.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10316
Issue ID: 10316
Summary: build/lib/mdb.c:5882: Assertion
'IS_BRANCH(mc->mc_pg[mc->mc_top])' failed in
mdb_cursor_sibling()
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: stefan(a)konink.de
Target Milestone: ---
I am developing ETL software in Python and I am using lmdb as backend. For this
I am using https://github.com/jnwatson/py-lmdb
In this big process I am resizing the map_size dynamically. I would say it is
certainly possible that I am reading at the same time. I end up in the
following error:
build/lib/mdb.c:5882: Assertion 'IS_BRANCH(mc->mc_pg[mc->mc_top])' failed in
mdb_cursor_sibling()
I ran my application again with a predetermined map size, and it did not
assert. Since it is a single shot, I don't know if I can be certain that it
therefore does not happen.
When searching for it I found the following issue from 2017, suggesting it can
be reproduced when running the performance test.
https://github.com/bnclabs/dbperf/issues/1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10315
Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.