date:20140404

Re: [389-users] 1.2.11.29 prediction?

2014-04-04 Thread Morgan Jones


On Apr 4, 2014, at 3:20 PM, Rich Megginson  wrote:

> On 04/04/2014 01:04 PM, Morgan Jones wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Rich Megginson  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 04/03/2014 02:56 PM, Morgan Jones wrote:
 On Apr 3, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Rich Megginson  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.
> 
> http://port389.org/wiki/Download

Oh.  I looked right over it.  Thanks.

-morgan


--
389 users mailing list
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

[389-users] Announcing 389 Directory Server version 1.2.11.29

2014-04-04 Thread Noriko Hosoi


389 Directory Server 1.2.11.29

The 389 Directory Server team is proud to announce 389-ds-base version
1.2.11.29.

This release is only available in binary form for EL5 (EPEL5) and EL6 -
see http://port389.org/wiki/Download#RHEL6/EPEL6 for more details.

The new packages and versions are:

  * 389-ds-base-1.2.11.29-1

A source tarball is available for download at
http://port389.org/sources/389-ds-base-1.2.11.29.tar.bz2


  Highlights in 1.2.11.29

  * several bug fixes


  Installation and Upgrade

See http://port389.org/wiki/Download for information about setting up
your yum repositories.

To install, use *yum install 389-ds*

yum install 389-ds

After install completes, run *setup-ds-admin.pl* to set up your
directory server.

setup-ds-admin.pl

To upgrade, use *yum upgrade*

yum upgrade

After upgrade completes, run *setup-ds-admin.pl -u* to update your
directory server/admin server/console information.

setup-ds-admin.pl -u

See Install_Guide
 for more
information about the initial installation, setup, and upgrade

See Source  for
information about source tarballs and SCM (git) access.


  Feedback

We are very interested in your feedback!

Please provide feedback and comments to the 389-users mailing list:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

If you find a bug, or would like to see a new feature, file it in our
Trac instance: https://fedorahosted.org/389


  Detailed Changelog since 1.2.11.28

  * Ticket 346 - version 4 Slow ldapmodify operation time for large
quantities of multi-valued attribute values
  * Ticket 415 - winsync doesn't sync DN valued attributes if DS DN
value doesn't exist
  * Ticket 417, 458, 47522 - Password Administrator Backport
  * Ticket 471 - logconv.pl tool removes the access logs contents if
"-M" is not correctly used
  * Ticket 47369 - version2 - provide default syntax plugin
  * Ticket 47448 - Segfault in 389-ds-base-1.3.1.4-1.fc19 when setting
up FreeIPA replication
  * Ticket 47455 - valgrind - value mem leaks, uninit mem usage
  * Ticket 47463 - IDL-style can become mismatched during partial
restoration
  * Ticket 47492 - PassSync removes User must change password flag on
the Windows side
  * Ticket 47516 - replication stops with excessive clock skew
  * Ticket 47538 - RFE: repl-monitor.pl plain text output, cmdline
config options
  * Ticket 47587 - hard coded limit of 64 masters in agreement and
changelog code
  * Ticket 47591 - entries with empty objectclass attribute value can be
hidden
  * Ticket 47596 - attrcrypt fails to find unlocked key
  * Ticket 47623 - fix memleak caused by 47347
  * Ticket 47627 - changelog iteration should ignore cleaned rids when
getting the minCSN
  * Ticket 47627 - Fix replication logging
  * Ticket 47637 - rsa_null_sha should not be enabled by default
  * Ticket 47638 - Overflow in nsslapd-disk-monitoring-threshold on
32bit platform
  * Ticket 47640 - Fix coverity issues - part 3
  * Ticket 47641 - 7-bit check plugin not checking MODRDN operation
  * Ticket 47642 - Windows Sync group issues
  * Ticket 47677 - Size returned by slapi_entry_size is not accurate
  * Ticket 47678 - modify-delete userpassword
  * Ticket 47692 - single valued attribute replicated ADD does not work
  * Ticket 47693 - Environment variables are not passed when DS is
started via service
  * Ticket 47693 - Environment variables are not passed when DS is
started via service
  * Ticket 47704 - invalid sizelimits in aci group evaluation
  * Ticket 47722 - rsearch filter error on any search filter
  * Ticket 47722 - Fixed filter not correctly identified
  * Ticket 47729 - Directory Server crashes if shutdown during a
replication initialization
  * Ticket 47731 - A tombstone entry is deleted by ldapdelete
  * Ticket 47734 - Change made in resolving ticket #346 fails on Debian
SPARC64
  * Ticket 47735 - e_uniqueid fails to set if an entry is a conflict entry
  * Ticket 47737 - Under heavy stress, failure of turning a tombstone
into glue makes the server hung
  * Ticket 47740 - Coverity Fixes (Mark - part 1)
  * Ticket 47740 - Coverity issue in 1.3.3
  * Ticket 47740 - Crash caused by changes to certmap.c
  * Ticket 47740 - Fix coverity erorrs - Part 4
  * Ticket 47740 - Fix coverity issues - Part 5
  * Ticket 47740 - Fix coverity issues: null deferences - Part 6
  * Ticket 47740 - Fix coverity issues(part 7)
  * Ticket 47743 - Memory leak with proxy auth control
  * Ticket 47748 - Simultaneous adding a user and binding as the user
could fail in the password policy check
  * Ticket 47766 - Tombstone purging can crash the server if the backend
is stopped/disabled
  * fix coverity 11915 - dead code - introduced with fix for ticket 346

Retrieved from "http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/1.2.11.29";
--
389 users mailing list
389-users@lists.fedorap

Re: [389-users] 1.2.11.29 prediction?

2014-04-04 Thread Rich Megginson

On 04/04/2014 01:04 PM, Morgan Jones wrote:

On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:

On 04/03/2014 02:56 PM, Morgan Jones wrote:

On Apr 3, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Rich Megginson 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.

http://port389.org/wiki/Download

thanks for the clarifications,

-morgan

On Apr 3, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Michael Gettes 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

Re: [389-users] 1.2.11.29 prediction?

2014-04-04 Thread Morgan Jones


On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Rich Megginson  wrote:

> On 04/03/2014 02:56 PM, Morgan Jones wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Rich Megginson  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  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

Re: [389-users] 1.2.11.29 prediction?

[389-users] Announcing 389 Directory Server version 1.2.11.29

Re: [389-users] 1.2.11.29 prediction?

Re: [389-users] 1.2.11.29 prediction?

4 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information