Howard Chu wrote:

...

masarati@aero.polimi.it wrote:

...

I'd like to resolve the ITS#6645 issue, either by committing or wiping out this patch from my working directory, as it conflicts with ITS#6737. Comments?

At this point I'm OK with anything that makes this ITS go away.

PS: Might as well add the feature to ldapsearch too, and close ITS#6149 and any others.

Fine; what option do you suggest? perhaps -L with an argument indicating columns number; I vaguely remember that optional values are a GNU extension, though.

p.

masarati@aero.polimi.it writes:

...

I'd like to resolve the ITS#6645 issue, either by committing or wiping out this patch from my working directory, as it conflicts with ITS#6737. Comments?

OK, here's a comment: "If the slapmodify patch couldn't make do with the ldif patch as written, this suggests the ldif patch was insufficiently general." Of course, it'd help if I looked at the patches before saying that:)

I'm not sure I fully understand your comment. But I realize my message was not entirely clear. The two patches conflict from a diff -u point of view, as they overlap a bit. In order to preserve them as distinct commits, I need to temporarily back out the slapmodify patch in slapcommon.h, commit ITS#6645, put back slapmodify patch with minimal manual intervention, and commit ITS#6737. Or, I can remove the ITS#6645 patch and simply commit the ITS#6737 one. There's no operational incompatibility between the patches as they touch completely orthogonal aspects of tool operations.

p.