On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 11:45:46PM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:38:52AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Upstream SONAME has changed to libldap2.2.
> > grabbing the package from http://pkg-openldap.alioth.debian.org/openldap2.2/
> > (thanks, Stephen):
> ?? What'
Hi Steve,
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:38:52AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Upstream SONAME has changed to libldap2.2.
>
> grabbing the package from http://pkg-openldap.alioth.debian.org/openldap2.2/
> (thanks, Stephen):
?? What's Stephen got to do with it?
> $ dpkg -x libldap2.2_2.2.23-0.pr
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:01:02AM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:07:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Good idea. I'd rather call it libldap2.2 and omit the -dev package for
> > > now to stop people from using it for their packages.
> > If the lib package name
* Torsten Landschoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 04:07:30PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > After some discussion w/ Steve Langasek regarding the issues which exist
> > w/ OpenLDAP 2.1 he had this suggestion:
>
> What are the major issues BTW!? I think 2.1.30 is mostly unu
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 03:07:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Good idea. I'd rather call it libldap2.2 and omit the -dev package for
> > now to stop people from using it for their packages.
>
> If the lib package name doesn't match the actual soname used by the library,
> then all possible
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 11:59:29PM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> Hi People,
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 04:07:30PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > After some discussion w/ Steve Langasek regarding the issues which exist
> > w/ OpenLDAP 2.1 he had this suggestion:
> What are the major issues B
Hi People,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 04:07:30PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> After some discussion w/ Steve Langasek regarding the issues which exist
> w/ OpenLDAP 2.1 he had this suggestion:
What are the major issues BTW!? I think 2.1.30 is mostly unusable
because of the data loss issues and bro
* Hadmut Danisch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> the debian version of slapd is pretty much outdated,
> the current upstream stable version is 2.2.20,
> with new features (replication...).
After some discussion w/ Steve Langasek regarding the issues which exist
w/ OpenLDAP 2.1 he had this suggestio
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Erm, I thought the license issues w/ the patch were resolved? It still
> needs to be fixed up for 2.2 tho.
After double-checking, the author of the patch has approved it being
released under the OpenLDAP license, therefore the license issues have
been
* Torsten Landschoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 05:44:51PM +0100, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
> > the debian version of slapd is pretty much outdated,
> > the current upstream stable version is 2.2.20,
> > with new features (replication...).
>
> I know I know :( The big show
10 matches
Mail list logo
