<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Rich Megginson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com">rmeggins@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
That was an early alpha version that was only in testing and should not<br>
have been pushed to stable (not sure how that happened). I strongly<br>
encourage you to use 389-ds-base-1.2.6-1. This is now in the testing<br>
repos and will be pushed to stable at the end of this week.<br>
<div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>oops - well, maybe that will explain the other (actual) problem I had after the schema update. I'll post on that when I get back to work tomorrow and can describe it; it's something that I can only find/see within the 389-console.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">Yes, bugzilla does allow you to mark attachments as private. But is it</div>
possible to reproduce this issue with just some dummy data to avoid the<br>
risk entirely? And if it is indeed a bug, we should open a bugzilla for<br>
this issue.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I didn't create any actual entries, it was just definitions for attributetypes and objectclasses. I don't really see much of a risk (necessarily?) unless my schema was just insanely broken; I don't use those two attributes anyway ;) happy to send the schema to whomever to try on their own, or I could just spin up a new EC2 instance and reload it "fresh" again and see if it happens again if loaded on an ec2 i686 instance...</div>
<div><br></div><div>However, if what I'm using is an unstable version, it could just be that it was triggered by doing a reload (regardless of content), and had nothing to do with my schema at all. Is that more likely?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Brian LaMere</div></div>