[Pkg-openldap-devel] OpenLDAP 2.4.7
quanah at zimbra.com
Sat Dec 22 03:53:19 UTC 2007
--On Friday, December 21, 2007 3:21 PM -0800 Steve Langasek
<vorlon at debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 09:02:37AM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>>> So should we move the Debian packages to db4.6 trusting that this will
>>> get fixed, or should we stay at db4.2 until it is? Is this issue severe
>>> enough that we should be unwilling to ship an OpenLDAP linked against a
>>> BDB that has the yield issue?
>> NPTL systems will be seriously impacted.
> Which is all recent Debian systems, ok. So from "seriously impacted", I'd
> conclude that we should stick with db4.2 for the time being.
Of course, one can always compile with the alternative threading library
option, which makes BDB 4.6 work just fine (and is what I intend to do for
>> Not all databases support replication (back-monitor for example). Some
>> databases probably shouldn't be replicated (back-config for example).
> That's detectable based on the contents of slapd.conf though, so this
> could be "apply it to all the databases that aren't back-monitor or
Or back-ldap, back-meta, bback-ldif, back-null, back-passwd, back-perl,
back-relay, back-shell, back-sock (coming in a future 2.4 release), and
back-sql. I think that about covers it. ;)
>> Also, see my somewhat more expanded reply in my other email to Russ.
>> One can't assume the credentials apply correctly in reverse.
> Right, I guess I just don't see that this should prevent us from doing the
> first, automatable half of the setup, leaving only the credentials setup
> for the admin to handle?
I suppose, although they may be doing other things than simple
username/password, but I'm guessing you can detect some of that from the
slurpd configurations as well. :)
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
More information about the Pkg-openldap-devel