Jean-Luc Wasmer wrote:
I didn't make it clear: I was actually asking if this issue was known (ie logged somewhere) to avoid polluting the tracking system.
The ITS is seldom "polluted" by issue notifications.
This is likely the same as ITS#4957 (already fixed), but it's hard to tell without a proper stack trace (with symbols intact) and without a version number.
Oh, sorry... I'm using 2.3.32 (but it looks like issue 4957 fix is not part of any current release).
I'll wait 2.3.36 before logging something.
I think this is an unwise attitude. Submitting issues in old releases risks to incur into already fixed bugs; but waiting for the next release to check if an issue disappeared risks to require yet another release to have it fixed. Running not yet released code is not really a big deal, especially if you stick with code tagged for release. For this purpose, you need to check out code from the CVS tagged as OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_X_Y (currently, OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_3). Follow directions at http://www.openldap.org/software/repo.html#AnonCVS. You'll get something known to work at least as much as the latest release, plus a number of known issues fixed.
p.
Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team
SysNet s.r.l. via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it --------------------------------------- Office: +39 02 23998309 Mobile: +39 333 4963172 Email: pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it ---------------------------------------