On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Rich Megginson <rmegg...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/03/2014 02:56 PM, Morgan Jones wrote: >> On Apr 3, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Rich Megginson <rmegg...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> On 04/03/2014 01:35 PM, Michael Gettes wrote: >>>> Yeah, I hear what you’re saying. 47758 is due to running bleeding edge, i >>>> get it. but i had to go there cuz I was having problems with objects >>>> getting messed up with .15 in production and even .25 in test and I went >>>> to .28 which had the SASL fix on top of .26 which fixed all object >>>> problems. The object problems were the emails I sent to the list >>>> indicating objects I couldn’t delete or modify and .28 fixed those >>>> problems. This is where i feel i was a little trapped and had to come >>>> forward to the bleeding edge. there was a method to my madness and didn’t >>>> this just willy nilly and hence where i was hoping for .29 to i might have >>>> a good mix of things - even if it was on the bleeding edge. i hope this >>>> makes sense. >>> Yes, and we are working on fixing those issues in EL6.6. So perhaps when >>> EL6.6 is released you will be able to use the OS packages. >> Rich et al, >> >> I've been following this thread with interest. I am however a little >> confused about the right place and version to get 389: >> >> you make a distinction between the source version (versions 1.2.11.28 and >> 1.3.1.16). Both are stable, 1.3.1 is just newer and potentially more >> bleeding edge? 1.3.1 also seems to not be available from either the OS or >> epel repositories. > > 1.2.11 branch is strictly maintenance - only the most critical patches. > > 1.3.1 branch is less strict - it may get new features. > > 1.3.1 is available for Fecdora 19. 1.3.1 will be in EL7. We are not > planning to provide it in EPEL7 at this time. Thanks, that makes sense. > >> And if epel6 contains patches that have not been fully tested and I should >> avoid it in production but how do I get the admin server, console etc? > > There is a distinction between "epel6" and the official EPEL6. What we call > "389-ds-base" in "epel6" is not really the official EPEL6 repository. It is > an individual developer provided and supported fedorapeople (and now copr) > repository strictly for those who want to (or must) be on the "bleeding" edge > of the 1.2.11 branch - those who absolutely require bug fixes or features > that are present in the upstream 1.2.11 branch, but are not yet in the > official EL6.5 389-ds-base package. I understand. I didn't catch the distinction between "EPEL6" and "epel6." Where is the (lowercase) epel6/copr repository? I know I've seen the fedora people repository in the past but I can't for the life of me find it (or copr) now. I see various pages but not the repository itself. thanks for the clarifications, -morgan >> On Apr 3, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Michael Gettes <get...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I recognize 389 is a community project and asking for timelines can be >>> problematic. Right now, I am sorta stuck between a rock and a hard place. >>> In production, I am on 1.2.11.15 which has problems that are fixed by >>> 1.2.11.28. I have 1.2.11.28 in test and fixes all my prod problems but >>> introduces a new problem which makes it rather difficult to manage the >>> environment and it would appear this will be corrected in 1.2.11.29. So, I >>> am a little curious as to when we might see 29. I do see on the roadmap 29 >>> has 4 closed and 5 active but no date set. >> >> Wouldn't this be a good time for Michael to consider 1.3.1? > > Sure, but we are not considering providing 1.3.1 rpms for EL6 at this time. > That means building/packaging/repository/updating manually. > >> >> thanks, >> >> -morgan >> -- >> 389 users mailing list >> 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users > > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
