Gavin Henry wrote:
Hi all,
Just playing in openldap-devel, with the next step being mirrormode, and
get this warning when running slapd with debug on:
config_back_db_open: line 0: warning: cannot assess the validity of
the ACL scope within backend naming context
So is this a seperate
Jeremiah Martell wrote:
Hello,
Here's the situation. I'm using openldap-2.2.17, libldap.
I bind to the server, successfully. I do a search, successfully. I
unbind, successfully.
However, when I watch this process with ethereal I notice something
wrong. All the search results are coming
Dave Horsfall wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Anthony wrote:
# /usr/local/etc/rc.d/slapd start
Starting slapd.
/usr/local/etc/openldap/schema/qmail.schema: line 55: Inconsistent duplicate
attributeType: mailHost
Did you include misc.schema as well? I note that it's defined in there
On Wednesday 16 August 2006 19:18, Steven Wong wrote:
I was wondering if this is correct or if I have my access or config wrong.
It seems that only cn=manager,dc=pro-unlimited,dc=com, which is the
rootdn can create a new child at the root level ( ie.
ou=netgroup,dc=pro-unlimited,dc=com ) and
Quoting Quanah Gibson-Mount [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why in the world are you using ldbm? It is a known problematic
database
that has been removed from OpenLDAP 2.4, so it is not portable going
forward. I highly advise using one of the supported backends (bdb or
hdb).
Am currently running
quote who=Pierangelo Masarati
Gavin Henry wrote:
Hi all,
Just playing in openldap-devel, with the next step being mirrormode, and
get this warning when running slapd with debug on:
config_back_db_open: line 0: warning: cannot assess the validity of
the ACL scope within backend naming
Hi Buchan,
Here is the ACL's from one of the slaves
access to dn.regex=.*,dc=pro-unlimited,dc=com
attrs=userPassword
by self write
by dn=uid=replicator,ou=ldapbods,ou=people,dc=pro-unlimited,dc=com write
by dn=uid=sysadmin,ou=ldapbods,ou=people,dc=pro-unlimited,dc=com write
by *
I'm running FC-3 with OpenLDAP RPMS (v. 2.2.29). Recently, my backend
was corrupted which caused me to rebuild the database. After doing
some research, I learned the BDB backend was the preferred backend
and that support for ldbm is on the way out. So I converted to the
BDB format using
--On Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:08 PM +0800 Roger Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Quanah Gibson-Mount [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why in the world are you using ldbm? It is a known problematic
database
that has been removed from OpenLDAP 2.4, so it is not portable going
forward. I
--On Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:09 PM -0400 Amith Varghese
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm running FC-3 with OpenLDAP RPMS (v. 2.2.29). Recently, my backend
was corrupted which caused me to rebuild the database. After doing some
research, I learned the BDB backend was the preferred backend
Hello,
Recently I have received some claims that says OpenLDAP 2.3.x (latest
stable) does not work well with OpenLDAP 2.3 series, and it is better to
use BDB 4.2.x instead of 4.3.x to archive better stability and/or
performance. After some Google search against the mailing list archive,
the only
Quoting Quanah Gibson-Mount [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Did you stop slapd and run db_recover with the correct version of
db_recover after creating the DB_CONFIG file? It is only read one
time, at the creation of the DB environment.
Nope, this was it though. Thanks for the quick help.
I'll also
On 8/17/06, 李鑫 (LI Xin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Recently I have received some claims that says OpenLDAP 2.3.x (latest
stable) does not work well with OpenLDAP 2.3 series, and it is better to
use BDB 4.2.x instead of 4.3.x to archive better stability and/or
performance. After some
REL_ENG_2_3 from a few hours ago (labeled as 2.3.26)
I get this error when trying to slapadd an ldif file with the -w option
on a database that is glue'd:
# slapadd -b dc=example,dc=com -w -v -g remote1.ldif
slapadd: database doesn't support necessary operations.
(same without -g)
Since I'm
In OpenLDAP 2.3.24 and 2.3.25 the tool-threads parameter has the desired effect
when running slapadd or slapindex on an hdb only when using the '-q' flag.
Without the '-q' flag, I only get one thread running. Is that the intended
behavior or is this a bug?
This is with 64-bit builds on Sparc
Eric Irrgang wrote:
In OpenLDAP 2.3.24 and 2.3.25 the tool-threads parameter has the
desired effect when running slapadd or slapindex on an hdb only when
using the '-q' flag. Without the '-q' flag, I only get one thread
running. Is that the intended behavior or is this a bug?
This is with
Quoting Quanah Gibson-Mount [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--On Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:08 PM +0800 Roger Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Quanah Gibson-Mount [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why in the world are you using ldbm? It is a known problematic
database
that has been removed from
17 matches
Mail list logo
