[389-users] Announcing 389 Directory Server 1.2.6 Release Candidate 1
Juan Asensio Sánchez
okelet at gmail.com
Wed Jul 21 09:01:06 UTC 2010
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616707
Regards.
2010/6/25 Rich Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com>
> Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:
> > And how will replication behave? Will this change be propagated to the
> > rest of the servers, or will it be overriden with the definition that
> > thare is now in the rest of the servers?
> Hmm - ok - if you want it to replicate, then make the change using
> ldapmodify while the server is running. Just replace the current
> definition with your new one.
> >
> > Can I change directly the 99user.ldif without restarting the server
> > and then reload the schema using teh script for that?
> Yes, but if you want it to work with replication, use ldapmodify instead.
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> >
> > 2010/6/25 Rich Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com
> > <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com>>
> >
> > Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:
> > > Hi again
> > >
> > > What will happen if I modify the schema, creating a new aattribute
> > > without specifying any matching rule? Will the directory use the
> > > default rules for for the attribute syntax?
> > Yes.
> > >
> > > Anuyway, how can I change now the matching rules for the existing
> > > attributes that gives that warning? In the console, when i edit the
> > > attribute in the schema, i don't see any option to change the
> > matching
> > > rule.
> > Please file a bug about the matching rules and the console. For now,
> > the only way to do it is to shutdown the server, edit 99user.ldif,
> > then
> > start up the server.
> > >
> > > Regards and thanks in advance.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2010/6/23 Rich Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com
> > <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com>
> > > <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com>>>
> > >
> > > Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > I have upgraded our test server(from version 1.2.5,
> > > > 389-ds-base-1.2.6-0.7.rc2.el5.i386 and
> > > > 389-admin-1.1.11-0.5.rc1.el5.i386), and when running
> > > > "setup-ds-admin.pl <http://setup-ds-admin.pl>
> > <http://setup-ds-admin.pl>
> > > <http://setup-ds-admin.pl> -u", i get many messages
> > > > like this (all about custom attributes):
> > > >
> > > > [22/Jun/2010:10:24:58 +0200] attr_syntax_create - Error: the
> > > EQUALITY
> > > > matching rule [caseIgnoreIA5Match] is not compatible with
> > the syntax
> > > > [1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15] for the attribute [XXXXXXXX]
> > > >
> > > > Attribute is defined as this:
> > > >
> > > > ( 1.3.6.1.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX NAME 'XXXX' DESC 'XXXXXXX'
> EQUALITY
> > > > caseIgnoreIA5Match SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{1024}
> > > X-ORIGIN
> > > > 'user defined' )
> > > Where does this attribute come from? It's kind of strange
> > that the
> > > syntax is DirectoryString which is essentially any valid
> > UTF-8 string,
> > > but the matching rule is caseIgnoreIA5Match which is for
> > comparison of
> > > 7-bit ASCII strings. Why not caseIgnoreMatch?
> > >
> > > At any rate, the message is really just a warning. There's
> > really no
> > > way to figure out all possible combinations of syntaxes and
> > matching
> > > rules that may be in use. It was my hope that this message
> > would
> > > cause
> > > these issues to be reported to the 389 team so that we could
> > > address them.
> > > >
> > > > Although the messages, the script finishes fine:
> > > >
> > > > Registering the directory server instances with the
> > configuration
> > > > directory server . . .
> > > > Beginning Admin Server reconfiguration . . .
> > > > Registering admin server with the configuration directory
> > server
> > > . . .
> > > > Updating adm.conf with information from configuration
> > directory
> > > server
> > > > . . .
> > > > Exiting . . .
> > > > Log file is '/tmp/setupbXoREC.log'
> > > >
> > > > But then I try access to the console, and click on "Directory
> > > Server",
> > > > i get this error:
> > > >
> > > > "Failed to install a local copy of 389-ds-1.2.3.jar or one
> > of its
> > > > supporting files. Please ensure that the appropriate
> > console package
> > > > is installed on the Administration Server.
> > 389-ds-1.2.3.jar not
> > > found
> > > > at https://XXXXXXXXXXXXXX:2000/".
> > > >
> > > > Is the error about the attribute critical? Why is the
> > client console
> > > > requesting 1.2.3 version of the jars?
> > > Because 389-ds-base now handles DN escaped values within
> > other DNs
> > > correctly, and requires 389-ds-1.2.3 (389-ds-console-1.2.3)
> > which also
> > > has support for DN escaped values in within DNs.
> > 389-ds-console-1.2.3
> > > should be available from the testing repos.
> > > >
> > > > Regards.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2010/6/16 Rich Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com
> > <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com>
> > > <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com>>
> > > > <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com>
> > <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com>>>>
> > > >
> > > > The 389 team is pleased to announce the availability
> > of Release
> > > > Candidate 1 of version 1.2.6. This release a couple
> > of bug
> > > fixes.
> > > >
> > > > ***We need your help! Please help us test this
> > software.***
> > > It is a
> > > > release candidate, so it may have a few glitches, but
> > it has
> > > been
> > > > tested
> > > > for regressions and for new feature bugs. The Fedora
> > system
> > > > strongly encourages packages to be in Testing until
> > verified and
> > > > pushed
> > > > to Stable. If we don't get any feedback while the
> > packages
> > > are in
> > > > Testing, the packages will remain in limbo, or get
> > pushed to
> > > Stable.
> > > >
> > > > The more testing we get, the faster we can release these
> > > packages to
> > > > Stable. See the Release Notes for information about
> > how to
> > > provide
> > > > testing feedback (or just send an email to
> > > > 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> > > <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org>>
> > > > <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> > > <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org>>>).
> > > >
> > > > The packages that need testing are:
> > > > * 389-ds-base-1.2.6.rc1 - 389-ds-base
> > > > * 389-admin-1.1.11.rc1 - 389-admin
> > > >
> > > > There are some new console/java packages too, and
> > there is a new
> > > > version
> > > > of the 389-ds "meta" package - 1.2.1
> > > >
> > > > * Release Notes - http://port389.org/wiki/Release_Notes
> > > > * Install_Guide - http://port389.org/wiki/Install_Guide
> > > > * Download - http://port389.org/wiki/Download
> > > >
> > > > === Bugs Fixed ===
> > > > This release contains a couple of bug fixes. The
> complete
> > > list of
> > > > bugs
> > > > fixed is found at the link below. Note that bugs
> > marked as
> > > MODIFIED
> > > > have been fixed but are still in testing.
> > > > * Tracking bug for 1.2.6 release -
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=543590&hide_resolved=0
> > <
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=543590&hide_resolved=0
> >
> > >
> > <
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=543590&hide_resolved=0
> > <
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=543590&hide_resolved=0
> >>
> > > >
> > >
> > <
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=543590&hide_resolved=0
> > <
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=543590&hide_resolved=0
> >
> > >
> > <
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=543590&hide_resolved=0
> > <
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=543590&hide_resolved=0
> >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 389 users mailing list
> > > > 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> > > <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org>>
> > > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
> > >
> > > --
> > > 389 users mailing list
> > > 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> > > <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org>>
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > --
> > > 389 users mailing list
> > > 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
> >
> > --
> > 389 users mailing list
> > 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --
> > 389 users mailing list
> > 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20100721/c9475628/attachment.html>
More information about the 389-users
mailing list