On Friday 08 February 2008 03:35:54 quanah(a)zimbra.com wrote: > --On Thursday, February 07, 2008 8:13 PM -0500 Oren Laadan > > <orenl(a)cs.columbia.edu&gt; wrote: >> will fix the symbols now. thanks. >> >> as for the patch, it seems unrelated as it fixes a problem during the >> start-up of the daemon; also, it's for 2.4.7, and I just downgraded >> back to 2.4.49 (which I was using originally). the decision to move >> up was because I hoped that the problem would disappear when using a >> more recent version of openldap. as it turns out, it didn't :( > There's no such thing as 2.4.49. I assume you mean 2.3.40? Or 2.3.39? I > would use 2.3.40 over 2.3.39 Quoting Howard: "While ITS#5342 is still being investigated, I would recommend that everyone use 2.3.39 and not 2.3.40. Sorry for the trouble." ITS#5342 is still open, and while the last two followups seem to indicate that the corruption was not the fault of 2.3.40 ... I'm planning an upgrade for this weekend (from 2.3.34 for one set of servers, and from 2.3.11 for another), and thus far I'm hoping to run with 2.3.39 with most fixes in 2.3.40 (plus #5358's fix), but not the dn2id lock fix ...

Maybe I should make provision for an export/import during my upgrade?

--On February 8, 2008 8:18:30 AM -0800 Howard Chu&lt;hyc(a)symas.com&gt; wrote: > Might as well. You still need to regenerate any presence indices and > integer indices when upgrading to 2.3.40. I thought that was only for going from 2.4.6 -> 2.4.7?