l�r, 24.04.2004 kl. 00.36 skrev Chris Toshok: > It's a problem in evolution because we don't give cn another value - we > replace the current one. Therefore the rdn is no longer in the entry.
Thanks for pointing that out. For the record, my remark applied to the attribute in general, not to its use by a client application. It's obvious that Evo has to "do its own thing" here. --Tonni -- > On Sat, 2004-04-24 at 00:26 +0200, Tony Earnshaw wrote: > > fre, 23.04.2004 kl. 11.43 skrev Adam Tauno Williams: > > > > > > searching through history of this list I've found mail from Tony > > > > Earnshaw giving some example on subject. Looking at snippet bellow > > > > I just wonder if it's legal to have different 'cn' value in > > > > distinguishedName and in 'cn' entity? > > > > > > No, it is not legal. The RDN(s) must exist in object itself. > > > > CN is multivalued (Openldap 2.2.10, GQ 1.0.b1). You can give it as many > > different values as you wish, and each may be different from the rDN. > > > > *shrug* > > > > --Tonni > > > > -- > > > > mail: billy - at - billy.demon.nl > > http://www.billy.demon.nl > > > > _______________________________________________ > > evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution > > > > > > !DSPAM:40899a05691521602265497! > > > > > _______________________________________________ > evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution -- mail: billy - at - billy.demon.nl http://www.billy.demon.nl _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
