[389-users] Keep the schema or change it?
Hi, I am in the process of migrating from Sun's DS 5.2 to DS 389 and I have compared the schemata. I see some differences and I wonder as to the best way to handle them. In general is it better to change the 389 schema and then always have to fix it with each new release or change my Sun clients somehow (this seems to border on the philosophical)? As an example, there is the Automount schema. On Sun's systems, they expect something schema like this: objectClasses: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.17 NAME 'automount' MUST ( automountKey $ automountInformation ) MAY description ...) with the 389 schema looking like this: objectclasses: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.17 NAME 'automount' MUST ( cn $ automountInformation ) MAY description ...) In other words, the lookup key matched against the user's login for home directories would be automountKey for Sun, and cn for 389. I notice that my Linux clients work fine with a Sun DS so they seem to be using automountKey. (Or are they looking for either?). I also see differences in the objectClass automountMap. Linux does not seem to work with a Sun-style autmountMap. If I just dump my Sun DS and load it into the 389 DS do I want to overwrite the schema? Should I only load the non-conflicting entries? If the 389 schema is the right schema, will Linux stop working some day when they conform? Is there a way to have both? I have about 500 mixed Sun and Linux clients and I want to minimize the reconfiguration on the day that I switch DS. -- Gary Algier, WB2FWZ gaa at ulticom.com +1 856 787 2758 Ulticom Inc., 1020 Briggs Rd, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 Fax:+1 856 866 2033 Nielsen's First Law of Computer Manuals: People don't read documentation voluntarily. -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
Re: [389-users] Keep the schema or change it?
On 07/19/2012 10:28 AM, Gary Algier wrote: Hi, I am in the process of migrating from Sun's DS 5.2 to DS 389 and I have compared the schemata. I see some differences and I wonder as to the best way to handle them. In general is it better to change the 389 schema and then always have to fix it with each new release or change my Sun clients somehow (this seems to border on the philosophical)? As an example, there is the Automount schema. On Sun's systems, they expect something schema like this: objectClasses: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.17 NAME 'automount' MUST ( automountKey $ automountInformation ) MAY description ...) with the 389 schema looking like this: objectclasses: ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.2.17 NAME 'automount' MUST ( cn $ automountInformation ) MAY description ...) In other words, the lookup key matched against the user's login for home directories would be automountKey for Sun, and cn for 389. Looks like Sun is using the RFC 2307 bis schema? Try this - remove the default /etc/dirsrv/slapd-INSTANCE/schema/10rfc2307.ldif schema, and instead copy in the /usr/share/dirsrv/ldif/10rfc2307bis.ldif I notice that my Linux clients work fine with a Sun DS so they seem to be using automountKey. (Or are they looking for either?). I also see differences in the objectClass automountMap. Linux does not seem to work with a Sun-style autmountMap. If I just dump my Sun DS and load it into the 389 DS do I want to overwrite the schema? Should I only load the non-conflicting entries? If the 389 schema is the right schema, will Linux stop working some day when they conform? Is there a way to have both? I have about 500 mixed Sun and Linux clients and I want to minimize the reconfiguration on the day that I switch DS. -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
