Le vendredi 17 avril 2009 09:47:27, Buchan Milne a écrit :
> On Thursday 16 April 2009 14:18:13 Adrien Futschik wrote:
> > Le jeudi 16 avril 2009 14:04:44, Michael Ströder a écrit :
> > > Adrien Futschik wrote:
> > > > I am aware I should migrate, but for the moment, the only solution I
> > > > have would be to migrate to OpenLDAP 2.3.32,
> > >
> > > Why? Please don't take this personally. But if that is because you
> > > strictly rely on Linux distribution packages I'd like to note that your
> > > operational concept is already flawed.
> >
> > Because the client I am working for uses source-compiled versions of
> > OpenLDAP and is curently running 2.3.11 or 2.3.32. There is no newer
> > package for the moment.
>
> It should be almost no effort to build packages of 2.3.43 if you have
> packages of 2.3.32 ... depending on how you build them.

Concerning OpenLDAP 2.3.43, I didn't see anything about contextCSN not being updated on a master in the changelog of OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_3, I am therefore not sure that it would solve the problem anyway.

Please, if anyone thinks that I have missed something there, don't hesitate !

> > > > Is it possible to use a newer version of OpenLDAP as slave ? ie.
> > > > Could I use OpenLDAP 2.3.11 as master and OpenLDAP 2.3.32 a slave for
> > > > a while ?
> >
> > I have justed tested it. OpenLDAP 2.3.11 as master and OpenLDAP 2.3.32 as
> > slave : it WORKS. The question is, is it reliable ?
>
> Well, the contextCSN disappearing from the master most likely won't change
> if you keep running the same code on the master, so I doubt this will help
> you.

True, but then it will be "easier" to switch to 2.3.32. The idea, is to use 2.3.32 as a slave for a while and the switch it to master and get rid of OpenLDAP 2.3.11.

> > In case of this client no. It is long to explain, and therefore, I will not
> > explain it here, but upgrading is'nt always an option.
> >
> > For your information, between the time OpenLDAP releases a version and the
> > time the projects might actualy use it, is about 6-7 month. That's because
> > of the whole compilation/testing/validation/packaging/releasing process
> > that the client is using. It has been so for many year now.

> Well, 3 of those steps (compilation,testing, packaging) should honestly take
> no more than 1 hour, if they are using any kind of decent build system ...
> (since OpenLDAP has had quite a comprehensive test suite since about 2.2.20,
> which can be run during the compilation/packaging).

Wrong, different teams are taking part of the whole process, and testing a product is'nt only a question of unit testing ! Anyway, this was not my point at all, thanks for carring.

Adrien Futschik