Re: Releasedate OpenLDAP 2.4
by Gavin Henry
<quote who="Dagobert Michelsen">
> Hi Gavin,
>
> Am 17.07.2007 um 11:04 schrieb Gavin Henry:
>> <quote who="Dagobert Michelsen">
>>> is there a release date for OpenLDAP 2.4? I had a talk with
>>> my boss today and he asked if the new Perl backend I am working
>>> on is going to make it into the next release.
>>
>> There will be a beta versin of 2.4 (progressing from alpha) soon.
>> No dates
>> yet.
>>
>> As for your new Perl backend, we haven't seen much of it yet, so it
>> won't
>> have been tested and is unlikely to be added just now.
>
> The question is if there is a chance of changing the backend to
> OpenLDAP 2.4 after release if it is not going to make it in the
> initial release. The next version 3.0 (or 2.5) is probably years
> away.
I couldn't comment as I'm not part of the core team, only the Engineering
team.
Have anyone seen your code in the project yet?
Thanks,
Gavin.
>
>
> Best regards
>
> -- Dagobert
>
> --
> Dagobert Michelsen (Leiter IT) Baltic Online Computer GmbH
> Firmensitz: Alter Markt 1-2, 24103 Kiel, Telefon: +49 431 54003-0
> Geschäftsführer: Erik Cickovskis, Amtsgericht Kiel, HRB 3756
> "Of course computer servers don't need thrust, since they generally
> don't go anywhere." -- Comment in TR on new HP server turbine fans
>
>
>
>
16 years, 2 months
Releasedate OpenLDAP 2.4
by Dagobert Michelsen
Hi,
is there a release date for OpenLDAP 2.4? I had a talk with
my boss today and he asked if the new Perl backend I am working
on is going to make it into the next release.
Best regards
-- Dagobert
16 years, 2 months
Issue [4623] : backport patch
by Benoit Donnette
Hello,
I wanted to submit a shortish patch, basically backported from the 2.4
solution for issue 4623 to the 2.3 branch, tested on Linux and Solaris 9.
I am not sure about the proper way to submit such a patch, any comment is
therefore welcome.
Technically, it is just a backport of 2.4's fix for 4623. It has been
tested on both Linux and Solaris 9.
Yours contributingly,
B. Donnette - LINAGORA - OSSA team
www.linagora.com - www.08000linux.com
16 years, 2 months
authPassword (RFC 3112) implemented?
by Gavin Henry
Dear all,
I was reading doc/devel/todo and RFC3112, and did a grep ;-)
I see that the following files contain authPassword info:
schema_init.c
schema_prep.c
slap.h
Does this mean it's implemented, as it still says it's not in slappasswd(8)
Thanks.
--
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.
T +44 (0) 1224 279484
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 824887
E ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com
Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).
http://www.suretecsystems.com/
16 years, 2 months
Is slapover.txt up to date for 2.4?
by Gavin Henry
Dear all,
Just reviewing our docs again and want to make sure slapover.txt is up to
date for all the latest overlay internals/details in 2.4.
Would someone be so kind as to check and if you want, fire over any
changes and I can apply them.
Thanks,
Gavin.
--
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.
T +44 (0) 1224 279484
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 1224 824887
E ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com
Open Source. Open Solutions(tm).
http://www.suretecsystems.com/
16 years, 2 months
Re: commit: ldap/servers/slapd/overlays rwm.c rwm.h rwmconf.c rwmdn.c rwmmap.c
by Pierangelo Masarati
ando(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote:
> Log Message:
> major improvement: baseline support for back-config; minor improvement: trim code to handle absence of librewrite (enable forced when slapo-rwm is configured...)
The major defect of this implementation is that there is no "rwm-map" or
"rwm-rewrite*" unparse. So the input is saved "as is"; it is presented
"as is" via the back-config interface, and it needs to be entirely
replaced instead of fine-grain edited by inserting/deleting/resorting
statements. I'll leave this as a future development if needed.
I plan to work at back-relay and back-meta some time, but probably not
in the very short term, so please don't wait for it for a future 2.4
release.
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(a)sys-net.it
---------------------------------------
16 years, 2 months
ldap_dn2ad_canonical() and UTF8
by Ralf Haferkamp
Hi,
The ldap_dn2ad_canonical() function is supposed to map an LDAP DN into a
Active Directory Canonical Name. Does anybody know why this function
disallows DNs with UTF8 characters in them? The comments in the code are
somewhat uncertain regarding this ;)
/*
* b) does DCE/AD support UTF-8?
* no clue; don't think so.
*/
But testing with a Windows Server showed me that is seems to be possible to
have UTF characters in the Canonical name. I am asking because I'd like to
commit a change that allows to have UTF8 in canonical names (by removing the
check for LDAP_AVA_NONPRINTABLE from the strval2ADstr* functions.
--
regards,
Ralf
16 years, 2 months
Re: commit: ldap/servers/slapd/back-bdb filterindex.c
by Howard Chu
quanah(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote:
> Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/ldap/servers/slapd/back-bdb
>
> Modified Files:
> filterindex.c 1.68 -> 1.69
>
> Log Message:
> ITS#5037
> Move db == NULL check to correct spot
As we already discussed in IM, just re-ordering the tests is not sufficient.
The actual test for db == NULL is wrong, you have to test the rc for the
specific value (LDAP_INAPPROPRIATE_MATCHING). There are two problems - if
bdb_index_param fails for any reason at all, it will not set the db, so you
need to distinguish the serious failures from the benign ones. Also, if you
examine the code for bdb_index_param, you'll see that it never touches the db
parameter on failure, so it will remain uninitialized.
--
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
16 years, 2 months
Re: (ITS#4991) pcache and rwm don't play well together
by Ralf Haferkamp
Hello,
slightly related to the above ITS, I have found another issue. I am not sure
though if this is a bug or if the behaviour is intended. I have a setup here
were the pcache and rwm-overlay is used on top of back-ldap.
rwm is used to rewrite some Attributetypes unknown to the Schema of the local
server to Attributetypes that are defined in the local server. As the
attribute values from unknown attribute types cannot be normalized by the
proxy, I am wondering if rwm should normalize them during the Mapping
process? Otherwise the Values will endup un-normalized in the cache database,
and I get incomplete results when requests are answered from the cache.
I have a patch ready for this but I was wondering if the normalization step is
left out by intention and wanted to ask before commiting my patch.
--
Ralf
16 years, 2 months
