[389-users] Keep the schema or change it?

[Rich Megginson]

On 07/19/2012 10:28 AM, Gary Algier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am in the process of migrating from Sun's DS 5.2 to DS 389 and I 
> have compared the schemata.  I see some differences and I wonder as to 
> the best way to handle them.  In general is it better to change the 
> 389 schema and then always have to "fix" it with each new release or 
> change my Sun clients somehow (this seems to border on the 
> philosophical)?
>
> As an example, there is the Automount schema.  On Sun's systems, they 
> expect something schema like this:
> objectClasses: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.17 NAME 'automount' MUST ( automountKey 
> $ automountInformation ) MAY description ...)
> with the 389 schema looking like this:
> objectclasses: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.17 NAME 'automount' MUST ( cn $ 
> automountInformation ) MAY description ...)
>
> In other words, the lookup key matched against the user's login for 
> home directories would be "automountKey" for Sun, and "cn" for 389.

Looks like Sun is using the RFC 2307 bis schema?  Try this - remove the 
default /etc/dirsrv/slapd-INSTANCE/schema/10rfc2307.ldif schema, and 
instead copy in the /usr/share/dirsrv/ldif/10rfc2307bis.ldif

>
> I notice that my Linux clients work fine with a Sun DS so they seem to 
> be using "automountKey".  (Or are they looking for either?).
>
> I also see differences in the objectClass automountMap.  Linux does 
> not seem to work with a Sun-style autmountMap.
>
> If I just dump my Sun DS and load it into the 389 DS do I want to 
> overwrite the schema?  Should I only load the non-conflicting 
> entries?  If the 389 schema is the "right" schema, will Linux stop 
> working some day when they conform?  Is there a way to have both?
>
> I have about 500 mixed Sun and Linux clients and I want to minimize 
> the reconfiguration on the day that I switch DS.
>