My impression was that the ordered elements in cn=config were supposed to get dynamically updated such that adding an entry with a specific cn={number}commonname... would cause the entries of 'number' and higher to be incremented. Is that correct?
In openldap 2.3.34, when I ldapadd cn={14}customschemaC,cn=schema,cn=config, the cn={14}customschemaB,cn=schema,cn=config entry is not renumbered. Is that appropriate? Is that okay or likely to break something? Has this been fixed or should I file an ITS?
Eric Irrgang wrote:
My impression was that the ordered elements in cn=config were supposed to get dynamically updated such that adding an entry with a specific cn={number}commonname... would cause the entries of 'number' and higher to be incremented. Is that correct?
In openldap 2.3.34, when I ldapadd cn={14}customschemaC,cn=schema,cn=config, the cn={14}customschemaB,cn=schema,cn=config entry is not renumbered. Is that appropriate? Is that okay or likely to break something? Has this been fixed or should I file an ITS?
Back-config does not implement sibling renaming. You're not supposed to modify schema items in 2.3, AFAIK; only add them. Renaming (even indirectly) should be considered modifying right now. So: yes, it's a missing feature, but it's known (and I think it's documented, although I'm unable to point you to the right docs right now).
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 ---------------------------------------
---- Pierangelo Masarati ando@sys-net.it wrote:
Eric Irrgang wrote:
My impression was that the ordered elements in cn=config were supposed to get dynamically updated such that adding an entry with a specific cn={number}commonname... would cause the entries of 'number' and higher to be incremented. Is that correct?
In openldap 2.3.34, when I ldapadd cn={14}customschemaC,cn=schema,cn=config, the cn={14}customschemaB,cn=schema,cn=config entry is not renumbered. Is that appropriate? Is that okay or likely to break something? Has this been fixed or should I file an ITS?
Back-config does not implement sibling renaming. You're not supposed to modify schema items in 2.3, AFAIK; only add them. Renaming (even indirectly) should be considered modifying right now. So: yes, it's a missing feature, but it's known (and I think it's documented, although I'm unable to point you to the right docs right now).
It is implemented in 2.4. The changes will not be backported to 2.3.
-- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun http://www.symas.com http://highlandsun.com/hyc Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support
openldap-software@openldap.org
-
Eric Irrgang -
Howard Chu -
Pierangelo Masarati