Philip Colmer wrote:
This was an area where I also got stuck when researching this last year. My
conclusions were:
1. UNIX needs group membership to be UIDs and not DNs, so attempts to use a
class that defines members with DNs are likely to fail.
Nonsense. nss_ldap, nss-pam-ldapd, and nssov
DRVTiny wrote:
OpenLDAP 2.4.39, amd64, debian 7
When i use the group with only static members in by
group/groupOfNames/member clause - all works perfectly
But when i'm trying to use in ACL definition dynamic members in 1:1
identicaly group - it doesnt work at all and in slapd debug output i
Nat! wrote:
Am 24.02.2014 um 04:21 schrieb b...@bitrate.net:
generally speaking, i’d discourage you from looking at that limit from the
perspective of “how large will my data be?”. instead, consider it a safeguard,
for the os/environment. evaluate your particular environment, and use
Nonsense. nss_ldap, nss-pam-ldapd, and nssov all support RFC2307bis.
Just to clarify, then, are you saying that if I use RFC2307bis so that
I can define a group that built from object classes posixGroup and
groupOfNames, and I define the membership of that group using the
groupOfNames member
Philip Colmer wrote:
1. UNIX needs group membership to be UIDs and not DNs, so attempts to use a
class that defines members with DNs are likely to fail.
Nope.
3. rfc2307bis has expired so there won't be much (any?) application support
for it. One of my key criteria when designing how our
Philip Colmer wrote:
Nonsense. nss_ldap, nss-pam-ldapd, and nssov all support RFC2307bis.
Just to clarify, then, are you saying that if I use RFC2307bis so that
I can define a group that built from object classes posixGroup and
groupOfNames, and I define the membership of that group using
Am 24.02.2014 um 15:56 schrieb Howard Chu h...@symas.com:
Certainly haven't seen the behavior you describe, but I seldom test on MacOS
or HFS+. I would use FFS, since it supports sparse files.
On Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD, there's no problem increasing the mapsize and
preserving the
