Re: "user"/"users" keyword in documentation

Howard Chu wrote: > Uwe Sauter wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> in the ACL chapter of the online documentation to OpenLDAP 2.6 (and likely >> the versions before) >> there might be a mismatch of singular/plural usage of the "users" keyword. >> >> In

Re: "user"/"users" keyword in documentation

Uwe Sauter wrote: > Hi all, > > in the ACL chapter of the online documentation to OpenLDAP 2.6 (and likely > the versions before) > there might be a mismatch of singular/plural usage of the "users" keyword. > > In chapter 8.3.2 "who to grant access

"user"/"users" keyword in documentation

Hi all, in the ACL chapter of the online documentation to OpenLDAP 2.6 (and likely the versions before) there might be a mismatch of singular/plural usage of the "users" keyword. In chapter 8.3.2 "who to grant access to" table 5.3 lists specifier "users" as

Re: Up To Date Documentation

--On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 1:47 PM -0600 Eric Fetzer wrote: Where can I go for documentation on modern versions of OpenLDAP?  I've been reading the guide at https://www.zytrax.com/books/ldap/ch1/ but it appears to be out of date from what I'm finding when trying to use it. https

Up To Date Documentation

Where can I go for documentation on modern versions of OpenLDAP? I've been reading the guide at https://www.zytrax.com/books/ldap/ch1/ but it appears to be out of date from what I'm finding when trying to use it. Thanks, Eric

Re: OpenLDAP client api documentation

--On Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:01 PM + frpi...@cisco.com wrote: Hi, Is there any documentation explaining how to write an LDAP client using the OpenLDAP library? If not, what is the best approach to find out what functions to use and what options should be set for a certain auth

OpenLDAP client api documentation

Hi, Is there any documentation explaining how to write an LDAP client using the OpenLDAP library? If not, what is the best approach to find out what functions to use and what options should be set for a certain auth method? I am writing a client but I am having issues with ldaps. Without

Re: Documentation: mapping from slapd.conf to slapd database

Norman Gray wrote: > Separately, Howard Chu said: > >> All of the schema is always retrievable from slapd itself, either by >> querying cn=Subschema >> or cn=schema,cn=config. > > That looks perfect in principle, and I see you made a similar remark in >

Re: Documentation: mapping from slapd.conf to slapd database

Quanah and Howard, hello. On 16 Jul 2020, at 16:29, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: Documentation such as [1] notes that there is a one-to-one correspondence between slapd.conf directives and slapd-config database attributes. However it's not always completely clear just what the mapping

Re: Documentation: mapping from slapd.conf to slapd database

Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > > > --On Thursday, July 16, 2020 2:11 PM +0100 Norman Gray wrote: > >> >> Greetings. >> >> Documentation such as [1] notes that there is a one-to-one correspondence >> between slapd.conf directives and slapd-config datab

Re: Documentation: mapping from slapd.conf to slapd database

--On Thursday, July 16, 2020 2:11 PM +0100 Norman Gray wrote: Greetings. Documentation such as [1] notes that there is a one-to-one correspondence between slapd.conf directives and slapd-config database attributes. However it's not always completely clear just what the mapping is. See

Documentation: mapping from slapd.conf to slapd database

Greetings. Documentation such as [1] notes that there is a one-to-one correspondence between slapd.conf directives and slapd-config database attributes. However it's not always completely clear just what the mapping is. For example, both [2] and slapo-syncprov(5) describe syncprov

Re: slapo-memberof(5) confusing documentation

Michael, hello. On 9 Sep 2019, at 16:16, Michael Ströder wrote: On 9/9/19 4:06 PM, Norman Gray wrote: However, immediately after that, the text says: Note that slapo-memberOf is not compatible with syncrepl based replication, and should not be used in a replicated environment. An

Re: slapo-memberof(5) confusing documentation

On 9/9/19 4:06 PM, Norman Gray wrote: The slapo-memberof(5) manpage mentions limitations on when it can be used, in the context of replication.  The current text is very confusing, and possibly not self-consistent. [..] The text currently says: The memberof overlay may be used with any

slapo-memberof(5) confusing documentation

Greetings. The slapo-memberof(5) manpage mentions limitations on when it can be used, in the context of replication. The current text is very confusing, and possibly not self-consistent. This message might be more appropriate as an ITS PR, but I'm sending it here first, partly in case

Re: any working documentation?

Am Mon, 19 Aug 2019 20:26:28 +0100 schrieb Dmitri Seletski : > Hello. > > > I am new to the list, so if you gonna beat me with your feet - please > don't hit me in the face. > > I did not find help/user list. So post here. > > Where can I find working documentat

Antw: Re: any working documentation?

stration of OpenLDAP on >> Linux/CentOS. Ideally for kid 5 and up, with many pictures and >> suitable for 'late bloomer'. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Dmitri >> >> Forwarded Message >> Subject: any working docum

Re: any working documentation?

OpenLDAP on Linux/CentOS. Ideally for kid 5 and up, with many pictures and suitable for 'late bloomer'. Thanks! Dmitri Forwarded Message Subject:any working documentation? Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 20:26:28 +0100 From: Dmitri Seletski &l

Re: any working documentation?

ny pictures and suitable for > 'late bloomer'. > Thanks! > > Dmitri > > Forwarded Message ---- > Subject: any working documentation? > Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 20:26:28 +0100 > From: Dmitri Seletski > To: openldap-technical@openldap.org > > Hello. > &

RE: any working documentation?

: maandag 19 augustus 2019 21:26 To: openldap-technical@openldap.org Subject: any working documentation? Hello. I am new to the list, so if you gonna beat me with your feet - please don't hit me in the face. I did not find help/user list. So post here. Where can I find working documentation

Fwd: any working documentation?

. Ideally for kid 5 and up, with many pictures and suitable for 'late bloomer'. Thanks! Dmitri Forwarded Message Subject:any working documentation? Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 20:26:28 +0100 From: Dmitri Seletski To: openldap-technical@openldap.org Hello. I am

any working documentation?

Hello. I am new to the list, so if you gonna beat me with your feet - please don't hit me in the face. I did not find help/user list. So post here. Where can I find working documentation for OpenLDAP? Most current i found: https://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/quickstart.html It says

Re: olcDbConnectionPoolMax documentation

Jongeling, Eric C wrote: > I'm running into what appears to be an issue with my olcDatabase meta > configuration that appears to be a bottleneck limiting me to 16 > concurrent operations when working through the meta database. That's typical for a slapd with the default number of threads. --

olcDbConnectionPoolMax documentation

of the backend connection pool, I'm confused by the word "privileged" in this situation. Can someone explain what this setting controls or point me towards documentation? Thanks in advance! ~Eric C. J.

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

MJ J wrote: Certainly, I will make a better list tomorrow or so and send them to you. Generally, it relates to the areas of cn=config which are not runtime configurable and the lack of inline ACLs being first-class citizens. Basically, I feel that anything which is exposed via cn=config should

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

Certainly, I will make a better list tomorrow or so and send them to you. Generally, it relates to the areas of cn=config which are not runtime configurable and the lack of inline ACLs being first-class citizens. Basically, I feel that anything which is exposed via cn=config should not require an

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

MJ J wrote: I actually like 389 a lot and I have used Netscape DS extensively in managing international telecom networks about 15 years ago. There are quite many management features that are superior to OpenLDAP still to this day, but I simply cannot use it anymore because of the lack of

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

Thanks, Howard. Without a doubt, your opinion and comments matter greatly. We will be in touch. On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Howard Chu wrote: > MJ J wrote: >> >> I had a requirement to build a centrally managed SSO system that >> replicated subordinate subtrees (kerberos,

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

There are no emotional reactions - there are simply statements that I won't be submitting to your condescending attitude. I have also been working in this same arena for 20 years and I have long ago found what is need to make large systems function. Perhaps if you would drop the zero-sum-game

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

MJ J wrote: I had a requirement to build a centrally managed SSO system that replicated subordinate subtrees (kerberos, identities, roles, permissions, resources, dns, etc) to the respective sites and handle tens of thousands of concurrent requests per second. I determined that FreeIPA was

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

I had a requirement to build a centrally managed SSO system that replicated subordinate subtrees (kerberos, identities, roles, permissions, resources, dns, etc) to the respective sites and handle tens of thousands of concurrent requests per second. I determined that FreeIPA was unable to perform

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

I actually like 389 a lot and I have used Netscape DS extensively in managing international telecom networks about 15 years ago. There are quite many management features that are superior to OpenLDAP still to this day, but I simply cannot use it anymore because of the lack of scalability. I know

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

> On Nov 17, 2017, at 12:34 AM, William Brown wrote: > > Whoa mate - I'm not here to claim that 389 is a better ldap server - we > just do some different things. We acknowledge our limitations and are > really working on them and paying down our tech debt. We want to remove

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

MJ J wrote: > I know because I have built such a system (based on OpenLDAP) and > deployed it internationally. So what makes your system special, which goals does it reach and how? Ciao, Michael.

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

MJ J wrote: > You're right, except for the fact that deploying 2 lines of new code > into production can still be a long process ;-) The phrase comes to > mind: If it ain't broken, don't fix it. You're free to decide to ignore good advice. But you have to accept that someone might point out

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 08:27 +0200, MJ J wrote: > No matter how you wrap poll() and select(), they will always be > poll() > and select() - you will always run loops around an ever increasing > stack of file descriptors while doing I/O. BDB is always going to > have > the same old problems...

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

No matter how you wrap poll() and select(), they will always be poll() and select() - you will always run loops around an ever increasing stack of file descriptors while doing I/O. BDB is always going to have the same old problems... That's what I'm talking about - sacrificing performance for

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

? That supports the OP's question - keep the documentation terse, the examples weak and focus on the consulting-ware business model. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Michael Ströder <mich...@stroeder.com> wrote: > MJ J wrote: >> Sure, it can be improved to become invulnerable to t

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 05:54 +0200, MJ J wrote: > Sure, it can be improved to become invulnerable to the academically > imaginative race conditions that are not going to happen in real > life. > That will go to the very bottom of my list of things to do now, > thanks. > > FreeIPA is a cool

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

MJ J wrote: > Sure, it can be improved to become invulnerable to the academically > imaginative race conditions that are not going to happen in real life. > That will go to the very bottom of my list of things to do now, > thanks. Adding a couple of lines of Python code is such a low-hanging

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

Sure, it can be improved to become invulnerable to the academically imaginative race conditions that are not going to happen in real life. That will go to the very bottom of my list of things to do now, thanks. FreeIPA is a cool concept, too bad it's not scalable or multi-tenant capable. On Wed,

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

MJ J wrote: > TLDR; in a split-brain situation, you could run into trouble. But this > isn't the only place. Efffective systems monitoring is the key here. > > Long answer; > [..] > The solution I posted has been in production in a large, dynamic > company for several years and never encountered

Antw: Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

>> together that information. I have a good idea how to implement >> uidNumber, but I haven't seen it done and I can't do it CORRECT today >> because I would have to register for a Private Enterprise Number so I >> won't hijack an OID namespace and that would take up to 30 days and >> there is no documented contingency plan anywhere. >> >> We are all familiar with the the LDAP call out articles that come out >> every year. All of the articles seem to come from a place of >> frustration. To be fair I think call out articles are a trend with >> databases. >> >> Do you think existing documentation is kind of vague? >>

Re: Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

hat the specific object wouldn't be listed. >>> >>>> Under no circumstances should you hijack OID namespace! >>> - OpenLDAP Software 2.4 Administrator's Guide >>> >>> That is a lot of data from a lot of different websites to string >>> together that information. I have a good idea how to implement >>> uidNumber, but I haven't seen it done and I can't do it CORRECT today >>> because I would have to register for a Private Enterprise Number so I >>> won't hijack an OID namespace and that would take up to 30 days and >>> there is no documented contingency plan anywhere. >>> >>> We are all familiar with the the LDAP call out articles that come out >>> every year. All of the articles seem to come from a place of >>> frustration. To be fair I think call out articles are a trend with >>> databases. >>> >>> Do you think existing documentation is kind of vague? >>> > > >

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

MJ J wrote: > Client apps are not scoped to do subtree searches from the root of the > directory where the autoincrement objects live, nor do the ACLs permit > it, but you knew that already. Good to hear it's alright in your deployment. But please add this extra note next time you give general

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

John Lewis wrote: > I was trying to implement uidNumber Attribute Auto-Incrementing Method > and I read http://www.rexconsulting.net/ldap-protocol-uidNumber.html This is 3rd-party documentation. Just a blog article, but not bad. => Take it with a grain of salt. > what name the calle

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

Client apps are not scoped to do subtree searches from the root of the directory where the autoincrement objects live, nor do the ACLs permit it, but you knew that already. Duplicate a race condition using the above code and you shouldn't be using LDAP in the first place. On Tue, Nov 14, 2017

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

MJ J wrote: > You don't need a special object class or schema, you can use this: > dn: cn=user,ou=increment,dc=foo,dc=bar > objectClass: top > objectClass: account > objectClass: posixAccount Ouch! Depending on the config of your LDAP server and client systems this is a visible user account with

Re: Is existing documentation kind of vague?

ncy plan anywhere. > > We are all familiar with the the LDAP call out articles that come out > every year. All of the articles seem to come from a place of > frustration. To be fair I think call out articles are a trend with > databases. > > Do you think existing documentation is kind of vague? >

Is existing documentation kind of vague?

nd with databases. Do you think existing documentation is kind of vague?

Re: Pverlay development documentation

Geoff Swan wrote: I have a need to write an overlay (openldap-2.4.44) and wondered if there was any documentation for overlay development? servers/slapd/slapover.txt I have examined the sources in contrib/slapd-modules/ and was hoping to locate something a bit more descriptive and maybe any

Re: Pverlay development documentation

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:59:34AM +1100, Geoff Swan wrote: I have a need to write an overlay (openldap-2.4.44) and wondered if there was any documentation for overlay development? http://www.openldap.org/devel/gitweb.cgi?p=openldap.git;a=blob_plain;f=servers/slapd/overlays/slapover.txt;hb

Pverlay development documentation

I have a need to write an overlay (openldap-2.4.44) and wondered if there was any documentation for overlay development? I have examined the sources in contrib/slapd-modules/ and was hoping to locate something a bit more descriptive and maybe any must-do's and gotchas for development. >F

slapo-rwm documentation

need to transform the attribute _values_ (i.e. I need to strip the DN-valued member values to get uids). From the existing documentation I can't find out how to restrict a rwm-RewriteRule to (certain) attributes. Any help? TIA Ralf Mattes

Re: Documentation Feedback

Thanks Tom. Will take a look. We've never had an installation script like this as it's normally part of the distro packaging system. The OpenLDAP just ships the source code and every distro likes things in different places even with the FHS v3.0 gavin. -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry.

Re: Documentation Request

access control >documentation are emphasized? I've wasted quite a lot of time on this >and some simple rules (which already exist in the documentation) would >have been really helpful. These are: > >8. Access Control >8.2. Access Control via Static Configuration >8.2.5. Access C

Re: Documentation Request

I am going to second this. On 09/01/2016 05:40 AM, Tom Jay wrote: > Hello, > > Can I make a request that certain features of the access control > documentation are emphasized? I've wasted quite a lot of time on this > and some simple rules (which already exist in the documentatio

Documentation Request

Hello, Can I make a request that certain features of the access control documentation are emphasized? I've wasted quite a lot of time on this and some simple rules (which already exist in the documentation) would have been really helpful. These are: 8. Access Control 8.2. Access Control via

RE: Documentation Feedback

the installation process. This could remove the need for some of the documentation, through removing some of the complexity of the initial installation. root@server:/usr/local/mysql# bin/mysql_secure_installation NOTE: RUNNING ALL PARTS OF THIS SCRIPT IS RECOMMENDED FOR ALL MariaDB SERVERS

Re: unclear documentation about openldap ACL definitions

Florian Best wrote: > Am 30.06.2016 um 11:29 schrieb Michael Ströder: >> Setting the privileges is IMO sufficient. >> > I see this differently. One example where this is useful would be the > following: Maybe I do not fully understand your aim but... > I would like to e.g. add a rule at the very

Re: unclear documentation about openldap ACL definitions

Hello Michael, Am 30.06.2016 um 11:29 schrieb Michael Ströder: >> * ACL rules can't be bound to the ldap operation (search, auth, add, >> > modify, delete, ...), you can only remove e.g. some of the permission >> > bits (e.g. access to if-operation="search" ...) > Setting the privileges is IMO

Re: unclear documentation about openldap ACL definitions

Thank you for this information, Dieter and Michael! With "add_content_acl on" this works. I now use the following rule: access to dn.regex="^uid=([^,]+),cn=settings,dc=base$" filter="objectClass=foobar" attrs=objectClass value=foobar by dn.regex="^uid=$1,.*dc=base$$" write by *

Re: unclear documentation about openldap ACL definitions

Am Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:49:12 +0200 schrieb Florian Best : > Hello, > > studying the slapd.access man page left me with an open question > regarding the control of object creation: > > * How to allow the creation of objects with a specific objectclass > only? > > For

Re: unclear documentation about openldap ACL definitions

Florian Best wrote: > * How to allow the creation of objects with a specific objectclass only? http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/1474.html The FAQ-O-MATIC does not look fancy but contains lots of useful access control examples. > All of the following examples aren't doing their job when

unclear documentation about openldap ACL definitions

Hello, studying the slapd.access man page left me with an open question regarding the control of object creation: * How to allow the creation of objects with a specific objectclass only? For example, I want to prevent that an object with a object class other than 'foobar' is created.

Re: Antw: Re: Documentation Feedback

Hi all, I'll be back on this in June. Been a busy month at work. Thanks.

Re: Documentation

Hi all, I'll be back on this in June. Been a busy month at work. Thanks.

Re: Documentation

. If I have to find may way through yet another custom process that this particular project has set up to submit a documentation fix then I simply won't do that. Whether it is a mailing list or it is an issue tracking system that I have never seen before does not really make much difference

Re: Documentation

Radovan Semancik wrote: On 05/02/2016 01:52 PM, Howard Chu wrote: Patch submission does not require subscribing to a mailing list. Submission to the ITS doesn't require an account/signup at all. There is no such contribution barrier. In contrast, any system that requires creating an account

Re: Documentation

On 05/02/2016 01:52 PM, Howard Chu wrote: Patch submission does not require subscribing to a mailing list. Submission to the ITS doesn't require an account/signup at all. There is no such contribution barrier. In contrast, any system that requires creating an account first is a significant

Re: Documentation

Daniel Howard wrote: Hello, Some thoughts I have had about OpenLDAP Documentation over the weekend My overarching concern is one of process. My day job is Ops, and especially at scale a documentation process is critical to success. And what this boils down to is that: * checking

Re: Documentation

Radovan Semancik wrote: On 04/30/2016 09:04 PM, Howard Chu wrote: The process of creating a patch with git is the same, whether we use github or not. I don't believe that's particularly meaningful. My thoughts exactly. Some 3-4 years ago. Then I've actually tried to run a project on github.

Documentation

Hello, Some thoughts I have had about OpenLDAP Documentation over the weekend My overarching concern is one of process. My day job is Ops, and especially at scale a documentation process is critical to success. And what this boils down to is that: - checking documentation is a part

Antw: Re: Documentation Feedback

gt; Gavin Henry <ghe...@suretec.co.uk> schrieb am 30.04.2016 um 01:57 in >>> Nachricht <capcb_g+qb5al1ecpjs2izfiahbxeixrrye2f6artbygtmrr...@mail.gmail.com>: >> I would offer to contribute to the documentation, but due to its lack of > usefulness, do not have an und

Re: Documentation

head is so high. To state that openly: I would probably never contribute to OpenLDAP documentation if I have to bundle a patch in a mail to a mailing list. I'm quite likely to contribute if there is a convenient "pull request" button or if it is maintained in a wiki. We are running

Re: Documentation

On Apr 30, 2016 1:03 PM, "Quanah Gibson-Mount" wrote: > > --On Saturday, April 30, 2016 11:41 AM -0700 Daniel Howard < danny...@toldme.com> wrote: > >> >> My recent experience is OpenLDAP on Ubuntu. I thought I would go with >> OpenLDAP's guide because they should know better,

Re: Documentation

--On Saturday, April 30, 2016 3:21 PM -0700 Daniel Howard wrote: On Apr 30, 2016 1:03 PM, "Quanah Gibson-Mount" wrote: --On Saturday, April 30, 2016 11:41 AM -0700 Daniel Howard wrote: My recent experience is OpenLDAP on

Re: Documentation

--On Saturday, April 30, 2016 11:41 AM -0700 Daniel Howard wrote: My recent experience is OpenLDAP on Ubuntu. I thought I would go with OpenLDAP's guide because they should know better, but the quick start was for older versions or something and hadn't been updated.

Re: Documentation

Daniel Howard wrote: My recent experience is OpenLDAP on Ubuntu. I thought I would go with OpenLDAP's guide because they should know better, but the quick start was for older versions or something and hadn't been updated. I like documentation systems that allow for user feedback, comments

Re: Documentation

My recent experience is OpenLDAP on Ubuntu. I thought I would go with OpenLDAP's guide because they should know better, but the quick start was for older versions or something and hadn't been updated. I like documentation systems that allow for user feedback, comments, or patches via github

Re: Documentation

> > I guess what I'm trying to say, from my mobile phone, is if the documentation were more "agile" in engaging the community for identifying issues and taking in corrections, we may all be happier. > Some great feedback. Maybe we could host something like gitlab for thi

Documentation

Hi all, List what you love about our docs: List what you hate: List what you'd love to see: List what you can help with: Thanks. -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry.

Re: Documentation Feedback

> I would offer to contribute to the documentation, but due to its lack of usefulness, do not have an understanding of the basic concepts myself. The best I would be able to do is describe my experience and provide the steps that I followed to get a basic installation working. > >

Re: Documentation Feedback

> I would offer to contribute to the documentation, but due to its lack of usefulness, do not have an understanding of the basic concepts myself. The best I would be able to do is describe my experience and provide the steps that I followed to get a basic installation working. > >

Re: Documentation Feedback

documentations project. Regards, Ozgur Karatasmued...@openldap.org 04.04.2016, 21:26, "Tom Jay" <tom_...@hotmail.com>:Hello,I would like to voice my frustration with the quality of the openLDAP documentation. I am compiling openLDAP from source on Debian 7, and have spent about 2-3

Re: Documentation Feedback

Am Mon, 4 Apr 2016 06:11:55 + schrieb Tom Jay <tom_...@hotmail.com>: > Hello, > > I would like to voice my frustration with the quality of the openLDAP > documentation. I am compiling openLDAP from source on Debian 7, and > have spent about 2-3 continuous days getting

Documentation Feedback

Hello, I would like to voice my frustration with the quality of the openLDAP documentation. I am compiling openLDAP from source on Debian 7, and have spent about 2-3 continuous days getting to the point where I can add an LDAP user with a UID. I have been close to giving up with the software

Re: Complementing set ACLs documentation

On 10/11/2014 02:49 PM, Ignacio Gallegos wrote: Hi, I will try to explain set ACLs complementing the information originally written by Mark Valence in the openldap-devel archive (http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/26/msg00046.html). I suggest you [read; then, if needed, ]modify

Complementing set ACLs documentation

Hi, I will try to explain set ACLs complementing the information originally written by Mark Valence in the openldap-devel archive (http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-devel/26/msg00046.html). Set ACLs are a bit tricky and difficult to understand without the appropiate documentation. I hope

default setup examples/documentation

Hi All, I am trying to find some kind of official documentation or examples for default structures for ldap. It is clear that the structure can vary a lot for different cases. But most of the users I think want to have a couple of ldif files simulating unix's passwd/group files something

Re: Documentation required on openldap 2.4.39

--On March 5, 2014 at 2:12:05 PM +0800 saurabh ohri sam_o...@yahoo.co.in wrote: Hi, Does anyone installed openldap 2.4.39 or later. Please help me with self created document as i am getting stuck at various point. I have installed and configured but not able to : 1) Change the ldap to

Documentation required on openldap 2.4.39

Hi, Does anyone installed openldap 2.4.39 or later. Please help me with self created document as i am getting stuck at various point. I have installed and configured but not able to : 1) Change the ldap to work for ldap(389) to ldaps(636) with openssl certs.  2) Not able to convert the

Documentation for memberof overlay

I'm trying to find documentation for the various values that can be specified for the MemberOf overlay, particularly olcMemberOfMemberAD and olcMemberOfMemberOfAD. There are other values where I'm curious as to why they have their particular value (e.g. olcMemberOfDangling: ignore). Where

Re: Documentation for memberof overlay

Philip Colmer wrote: I'm trying to find documentation for the various values that can be specified for the MemberOf overlay, particularly olcMemberOfMemberAD and olcMemberOfMemberOfAD. There are other values where I'm curious as to why they have their particular value (e.g. olcMemberOfDangling

back-sql documentation (was: SELinux woes)

2.4.27 Release (2011/11/24) Added slapd-sql dynamic config support Oh! Thanks for the pointer. Anyone know if there's any chance the documentation is going to be updated? It's over a year later and the docs (and everything I saw in the list archives) say I must use slapd.conf

Re: back-sql documentation (was: SELinux woes)

: OpenLDAP 2.4.27 Release (2011/11/24) Added slapd-sql dynamic config support Oh! Thanks for the pointer. Anyone know if there's any chance the documentation is going to be updated? It's over a year later and the docs (and everything I saw in the list archives) say I must use slapd.conf I

Re: back-sql documentation (was: SELinux woes)

--On Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:17 AM -0800 Ori Bani orib...@gmail.com wrote: Oh! Thanks for the pointer. Anyone know if there's any chance the documentation is going to be updated? It's over a year later and the docs (and everything I saw in the list archives) say I must use slapd.conf

Re: Documentation

For anyone reading french, I published some times ago such kind of cookbook, in Linux magazine (the french one): That is very well done. -JP

Re: request for brief documentation

Subject: request for brief documentation Dear team, This is tirumala rao, working as a system administrator in infronics systems ltd, and i want to configure the open ldap server in my office and i have choose open ldap version-2.4.29  in the centos-6 and my problem is that i refered open ldap

Re: request for brief documentation

On 19/2/2012 12:44 μμ, tirumala chenchala wrote: ... guide me how to configure slapd after install in centos-6.2 You may try this link (which attempts to be a startup guide, although I haven't used it myself): http://www.nodeofcrash.com/?p=481 and refer to the software documentation

  1   2   >