Fedora directory users - Mar 2006 - Announcing Fedora Directory Server 1.0.2

Fedora Directory Server 1.0.2 is released!  This release contains new
features, new platform support, and many bug fixes.

* Extended Password Syntax checking - passwords can be checked to see if
they conform to the following:
** minimum password character length (old feature, but now the default
is 8 characters)
** minimum number of digit characters (0-9)
** minimum number of ASCII alpha characters (a-z, A-Z)
** minimum number of uppercase ASCII alpha characters (A-Z)
** minimum number of lowercase ASCII alpha characters (a-z)
** minimum number of special ASCII characters (!@#$, etc.)
** minimum number of 8-bit characters
** maximum number of times the same char can be immediately repeated
(aaabbb)
** minimum number of character categories that are represented
(categories are lower, upper, digit, special, and 8-bit)
** Screenshot - http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Image:Pwdsyntax.png

* Support for Linux x86_64 - RPMs for Fedora Core 4 and Fedora 
Core3/RHEL4 x86_64 are
on the Download page.

* Preliminary support for Fedora Core 5 - including support for Apache
2.2 and native java

* Bug fixes - follow this link
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183369) to see the
bugzilla report

Release Notes: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Release_Notes
Download: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Download
Home Page: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Main_Page

On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 07:55 -0700, Richard Megginson wrote:
> * Support for Linux x86_64 - RPMs for Fedora Core 4 and Fedora 
> Core3/RHEL4 x86_64 are
> on the Download page.
Would the x86_64 support be of the "it builds and it might work.  Use at
your own risk" variety or "it builds, it works, we''ve fully
tested and
would be the enterprise on it" variety?  I''ve been waiting to
finally
upgrade from OpenLDAP until there was a native 64-bit version, and now
it''s here.

-- 
David Hollis <dhollis@davehollis.com>

David Hollis wrote:
>On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 07:55 -0700, Richard Megginson wrote:
>
>  
>
>>* Support for Linux x86_64 - RPMs for Fedora Core 4 and Fedora 
>>Core3/RHEL4 x86_64 are
>>on the Download page.
>>    
>>
>
>Would the x86_64 support be of the "it builds and it might work.  Use
at
>your own risk" variety or "it builds, it works, we''ve
fully tested and
>would be the enterprise on it" variety?
>
The former.  This is the first time we''ve released on x86_64.  However,
we''ve had native 64 bit support for years on Sun and HP, so
it''s not as
if this is the first ever native 64 bit version that has a lot of latent 
64 bit porting issues.
>I''ve been waiting to finally
>upgrade from OpenLDAP until there was a native 64-bit version, and now
>it''s here.
>
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>--
>Fedora-directory-users mailing list
>Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
>  
>

Richard Megginson wrote:

 > Fedora Directory Server 1.0.2 is released!  This release contains new
 > features, new platform support, and many bug fixes.
 >
 > * Extended Password Syntax checking - passwords can be checked to see if
 > they conform to the following:


Very nice. Can the failed tests be reported over-the-wire via controls 
or extended operations? How do you remotely use this feature in practice?


 > * Support for Linux x86_64 - RPMs for Fedora Core 4 and Fedora 
Core3/RHEL4 x86_64 are
 > on the Download page.


And how about Solaris sparc? Will it ever be supported again?


BR,
Mike

Mike Jackson wrote:
> Richard Megginson wrote:
>
> > Fedora Directory Server 1.0.2 is released!  This release contains new
> > features, new platform support, and many bug fixes.
> >
> > * Extended Password Syntax checking - passwords can be checked to 
> see if
> > they conform to the following:
>
>
> Very nice. Can the failed tests be reported over-the-wire via controls 
> or extended operations?
Through the same mechanisms that are used now for passwords that fail 
syntax checking during add or modify operations.
> How do you remotely use this feature in practice?
>
>
> > * Support for Linux x86_64 - RPMs for Fedora Core 4 and Fedora 
> Core3/RHEL4 x86_64 are
> > on the Download page.
>
>
> And how about Solaris sparc? Will it ever be supported again?
Yes, but we have some issues, primarily with Apache and Perl.  
Unfortunately, we cannot use the Apache provided with some versions of 
Solaris, nor the version from sunfreeware.com, because they do not have 
support for multi threaded mode.

In addition, there are no pre-built native 64 bit Apache and Perl 
binaries that we can use.  We require native 64 bit because all of our 
components are native 64 bit, and we''d rather not get into the business
of having to ship the full contingent of 32 bit components with our 64 
bit distribution - harder to build, harder to manage, package size 
bloat, etc. etc.

The result is that we will have to build and distribute our own versions 
of Apache and Perl for Solaris for 32 bit and 64 bit.  We are doing this 
work for Red Hat Directory Server and Certificate System because we have 
to support our existing Solaris customers, so once that''s done, we 
should be able to leverage that work for Fedora Directory Server.
>
>
> BR,
> Mike
>
> -- 
> Fedora-directory-users mailing list
> Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users

On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 10:05, Richard Megginson wrote:
> In addition, there are no pre-built native 64 bit Apache and Perl 
> binaries that we can use.  We require native 64 bit because all of our 
> components are native 64 bit, and we''d rather not get into the
business
> of having to ship the full contingent of 32 bit components with our 64 
> bit distribution - harder to build, harder to manage, package size 
> bloat, etc. etc.
Aren''t libraries almost certain to get out of sync on platforms
with 32/64 bit capabilities if you don''t bundle both versions
in all binary distributions?

-- 
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell@gmail.com

Les Mikesell wrote:
>On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 10:05, Richard Megginson wrote:
>
>  
>
>>In addition, there are no pre-built native 64 bit Apache and Perl 
>>binaries that we can use.  We require native 64 bit because all of our 
>>components are native 64 bit, and we''d rather not get into the
business
>>of having to ship the full contingent of 32 bit components with our 64 
>>bit distribution - harder to build, harder to manage, package size 
>>bloat, etc. etc.
>>    
>>
>
>Aren''t libraries almost certain to get out of sync on platforms
>with 32/64 bit capabilities if you don''t bundle both versions
>in all binary distributions?
>  
>
I''m not sure I understand.  For Solaris, we plan on having a native 32 
bit version (only 32 bit components) and a native 64 bit version (only 
64 bit components).  Same as we have now on linux.  The linux i386 
packages contain only 32 bit components, and the x86_64 packages contain 
only 64 bit components.

On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 11:09, Richard Megginson wrote:
> >
> >>In addition, there are no pre-built native 64 bit Apache and Perl 
> >>binaries that we can use.  We require native 64 bit because all of
our
> >>components are native 64 bit, and we''d rather not get into
the business
> >>of having to ship the full contingent of 32 bit components with our
64
> >>bit distribution - harder to build, harder to manage, package size 
> >>bloat, etc. etc.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Aren''t libraries almost certain to get out of sync on
platforms
> >with 32/64 bit capabilities if you don''t bundle both versions
> >in all binary distributions?
> >  
> >
> I''m not sure I understand.  For Solaris, we plan on having a
native 32
> bit version (only 32 bit components) and a native 64 bit version (only 
> 64 bit components).  Same as we have now on linux.  The linux i386 
> packages contain only 32 bit components, and the x86_64 packages contain 
> only 64 bit components.
If none of the components can successfully interact, I suppose
it doesn''t matter.  However, if you include both client and
server libraries, shouldn''t you be able to use a 32-bit app
that needs client libraries to access a 64-bit server running
on the same box?  Or vice-versa?

-- 
  Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell@gmail.com

>If none of the components can successfully interact, I suppose
>it doesn''t matter.  However, if you include both client and
>server libraries, shouldn''t you be able to use a 32-bit app
>that needs client libraries to access a 64-bit server running
>on the same box?  Or vice-versa?
>  
>
The server package is not intended to be the delivery vehicle
for client libraries. Yes there are copies of the client libraries
in the package today (because the server and its tools depend
on them). But in a perfect world (to be achieved at some point
in the future), the client libs would be shipped in their own package.

So a 32-bit app that depends on client libraries would simply
depend on the 32-bit client library package. That stack would
be 100% independent of any 64-bit server (and its dependent
libraries) that might be installed on the same box.

> * Preliminary support for Fedora Core 5 - including support for Apache
> 2.2 and native java
What RPM should I install on FC5T3? I did install
http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/download/fedora-ds-1.0.2-1.FC4.i386.opt.rpm.
However, during installation, the Admin Server fails to start:

httpd.worker: Syntax error on line 151 of
/opt/fedora-ds/admin-serv/config/httpd.conf: Cannot load
/opt/fedora-ds/bin/admin/lib/libmodrestartd.so into server:
/opt/fedora-ds/bin/admin/lib/libmodrestartd.so: undefined symbol:
apr_filename_of_pathname

What did I do wrong?

Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
>>* Preliminary support for Fedora Core 5 - including support for Apache
>>2.2 and native java
>>    
>>
>
>What RPM should I install on FC5T3?
>
There are no RPMs (yet) for FC5.  Instead, you''ll have to build it from
source.  See http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Building#One-Step_Build
>I did install
>http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/download/fedora-ds-1.0.2-1.FC4.i386.opt.rpm.
>However, during installation, the Admin Server fails to start:
>
>httpd.worker: Syntax error on line 151 of
>/opt/fedora-ds/admin-serv/config/httpd.conf: Cannot load
>/opt/fedora-ds/bin/admin/lib/libmodrestartd.so into server:
>/opt/fedora-ds/bin/admin/lib/libmodrestartd.so: undefined symbol:
>apr_filename_of_pathname
>
>What did I do wrong?
>
>--
>Fedora-directory-devel mailing list
>Fedora-directory-devel@redhat.com
>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-devel
>  
>