Let me first explain one thing. If you have one problem and you don't
have time to rebuild from source, then it's very likely you'll have to
live with your problem. The only difference between you and me is that if
I find a solution, I can commit the fix. For the rest, your time is
valuable exactly as mine, and I probably get paid less than you get paid,
but to fix my problems, not yours. It just happened that tracking
someone's issue, upgrading just solved it (ITS#6537, which ended up being
a duplicate of another, already solved issue). In order to save the very
scarce, unpaid manpower we can dedicate to fixing others' issues, our
policy is to avoid tracking issues in old releases, because we don't
backport fixes so, in the best case, the issue will be solved in the next
one, and you'll have to upgrade anyway.
After this lengthy preamble, thanks to your prompt response I already
figured out myself how to reproduce the issue you're having, so you don't
need to rebuild yet. You'll have to as soon as the issue is fixed.
p.
It is also bears mentioning that test022-ppolicy has not changed at
all
since 2.4.18, and so would never detect this
problem, even using the most recent stable version. As I mentioned,
ldapsearch does not trigger any errors - only
slapcat does (and of course, starting slapd, which fails as is detailed
above).
If you really want to test this, you must restart the server on which the
chaining configuration from test022-ppolicy
has been added, and then run slapcat. I am not the only one to run in to
this; for example, this individual has the
exact same issue, with no resolution:
http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200907/msg00118.html
I'd be more than happy to patch the source, if such a patch existed. But
since nothing seems to have changed in the
relevant bits of code that would affect this behavior, and no
corresponding ITS exists, that would lead me to believe it
is thusly undocumented, except for similar on-list complaints. If you can
show me where in the back-ldap code you
believe I've missed said patch or refactoring, I've got no problem
admitting I missed it, but I don't see any such
modification(s).
I'm sure not everybody has the time to build from completely new source
every time a bug is unearthed, and while I do
not object to doing that as soon as I can, right now I have a slapd server
that is down because of this, so top priority
is to evaluate the code to figure out where this bug is stemming from and
fix it so I can restart slapd. Next priority
is building and testing new packages. I mean no disrespect by this, but
dropping everything to do this and work out any
new issues, bugs, and compatibility problems and separate those from this
pre-existing buggy behavior, seems hasty at
best, especially when there's no concretely identified reason for doing so
(i.e., this revision had change X, which
fixes problem Y).
I'm still reviewing the relevant code (which AFAICT hasn't changed) to
figure out what's going on here and put out the
immediate fire so that I can at least restore services, at which point I
will obviously have to make the time to
completely upgrade it all.
Thanks