h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no wrote:

Pierangelo Masarati writes:

...

I think ITS#5326 is related. Namely, write operations (add, rename) should always rebuild the (new)DN hierarchically from the tree.

I'm not sure what exactly the problem is, if any:-) Syncrepl itself needs to handle databases that are not that nice: We can't require that of back-perl, nor back-ldap which accesses a non-OpenLDAP server (if that makes any sense). And syncrepl + rwm, maybe? Also syncrepl is an RFC (4533) so it should handle non-OpenLDAP peers.

Still, if it keeps OpenLDAP-on-OpenLDAP clean, that's a plus. Unless we want back-ldif to be different just to test that syncrepl handles different backends. Might also make a test which replicates between different backends - e.g. $BACKEND and back-ldif.

Agree to your objections. Though, ITS#5326 would improve OpenLDAP, IMHO :)

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 Fax: +39 0382 476497 Email: ando@sys-net.it -----------------------------------