[389-users] attributes from 00core.ldif put in 99users.ldif after schema update

[Rich Megginson]

Brian LaMere wrote:
> 2010/8/31 Noriko Hosoi <nhosoi at redhat.com <mailto:nhosoi at redhat.com>>
>
>     Any special messages in the errors log?  
>
>
> None; once the import succeeded (previous post about superior 
> attributes), it succeeded without any errors.
>  
>
>     Server version.
>
>
> Very fresh install.  Installed at 389-ds-base-1.2.6-0.1.a1, which is 
> apparently still the most updated version.
That was an early alpha version that was only in testing and should not 
have been pushed to stable (not sure how that happened).  I strongly 
encourage you to use 389-ds-base-1.2.6-1.  This is now in the testing 
repos and will be pushed to stable at the end of this week.
>  
>
>       Is MMR 2-way? 
>
>
> yes - though, I had disabled MMR during the import (completely; I went 
> in to the replication tab and unchecked the "enable replica" box, 
> which means I had to redo the agreements too).
>  
>
>     Could it be possible to share the custom schema with us?
>
>
> I could, yes - I'd rather not do it completely to the whole email 
> list, but it's not really all that sensitive of information so I could 
> send it to particular people.  I don't recall if fedora's bugzilla 
> install allows for making private file uploads?  Is it worth opening a 
> bug report since it only did it during the first load?
Yes, bugzilla does allow you to mark attachments as private.  But is it 
possible to reproduce this issue with just some dummy data to avoid the 
risk entirely?  And if it is indeed a bug, we should open a bugzilla for 
this issue.
>
>
>     I assume you could search x121Address and internationalISDNNumber
>     attributes with the base DN "cn=schema" (i.e., they are visible on
>     the Console) and restarting the server does not change it.  If
>     that's the case, I think the server is in the right state now. 
>     But we'd like to reproduce the problem you encountered.
>
>
> Yes, simply removing the entries from 99user.ldif, then reloading 
> again, made it not repeat.  However, the first server which didn't do 
> this did instead do something else I noticed later; I'll bring that up 
> in a different post, since unlike this problem (which is almost just a 
> bug report) the other I noticed later is an actual issue that needs to 
> be resolved.
>  
> One thing I realized is that the two servers aren't actually 
> identical; the one that grabbed those two attributes and put them in 
> 99user.ldif is an i686 box (running in a cloud, but that shouldn't 
> matter...the architecture might, though).  The one that didn't exhibit 
> that behavior was instead an x86_64 box (physical, non-vm).
>
> Brian LaMere
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users