Fedora directory users - Dec 2009 - [389-users] Announcing 389 Directory Server 1.2.5 Release Candidate 2

The 389 team is pleased to announce the availability of Release
Candidate 2 of version 1.2.5.

We need your help!  Please help us test this software.  It is a Release
Candidate, so it is fairly stable at this point.  We have worked hard to
make sure upgrades from previous releases are as smooth as possible, and
we would really appreciate feedback about upgrades.  The Fedora system
strongly encourages packages to be in Testing until verified and pushed
to Stable.  If we don''t get any feedback while the packages are in
Testing, the packages will remain in limbo, or get pushed to Stable.

The more testing we get, the faster we can release these packages to Stable.

* Release Notes - http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Notes
* Install_Guide - http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Install_Guide
* Download - http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Download

=== New features ==None - this release is primarily to fix some bugs found in
1.2.5.rc1,
including a bug that causes import to crash when reading the 
userPassword attribute.

=== Bugs Fixed ==This release contains a couple of bug fixes.  The complete list
of bugs
fixed is found at the link below.  Note that bugs marked as MODIFIED
have been fixed but are still in testing.
* Tracking bug for 1.2.5 release -
[https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=533025&hide_resolved=0

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=533025&hide_resolved=0]
* [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=195302 195302] local pwp
can''t set storage scheme
* [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=387681 387681]
"windows_process_dirsync_entry: failed to map tombstone dn." with , in
DisplayName
* [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486171 486171] [RFE]
Access log - Failed binds
* [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497199 497199] ''failed
to
send dirsync search request 2'' error
* [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504817 504817] [Double
quoted distinguished names not working in fedora-ds 1.2.0
* [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515329 515329] Multiple
mods in one operation can result in an inconsistent replica
* [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=540559 540559] selinux
policy needs to allow log pipe [See dependency tree for bug 540559]

Hi,

2009/12/8 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com>:
> The 389 team is pleased to announce the availability of Release
> Candidate 2 of version 1.2.5.
> * [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486171 486171] [RFE]
> Access log - Failed binds
What does this fix do?  The information in bugzilla is blocked and i
haven''t found any git commit concerning this RFE....


@+

Andrey Ivanov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2009/12/8 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com>:
>   
>> The 389 team is pleased to announce the availability of Release
>> Candidate 2 of version 1.2.5.
>>     
>
>   
>> * [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486171 486171] [RFE]
>> Access log - Failed binds
>>     
> What does this fix do?  The information in bugzilla is blocked and i
> haven''t found any git commit concerning this RFE....
>   
Sorry about that.  This is really just an extension of the Named Pipe 
Log Script - there is a plugin to log only failed binds.
>
> @+
>
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-users@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
>

Hi,
>> 2009/12/8 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> The 389 team is pleased to announce the availability of Release
>>> Candidate 2 of version 1.2.5.
Well, this time the installation (compiled from sources) was ok. I''ve
also imported my ldif export from 1.1 server. The only catch was the
syntax check (nsslapd-syntaxcheck: on)  -  had to disable it because
of some expiration dates of Generalized Time syntax that were rather
approximative (something like X-expirationDate: 201012). The
telephoneNumber, on the other hand, is not validated, as far as i
understand...

Andrey Ivanov wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   
>>> 2009/12/8 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com>:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> The 389 team is pleased to announce the availability of Release
>>>> Candidate 2 of version 1.2.5.
>>>>         
>
> Well, this time the installation (compiled from sources) was ok.
I''ve
> also imported my ldif export from 1.1 server.
Excellent - good to know.
> The only catch was the
> syntax check (nsslapd-syntaxcheck: on)  -  had to disable it because
> of some expiration dates of Generalized Time syntax that were rather
> approximative (something like X-expirationDate: 201012). The
> telephoneNumber, on the other hand, is not validated, as far as i
> understand...
>   
You have attribute values that use telephoneNumber syntax, that are not 
correct syntax, that the server accepts?
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-users@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
>

On 12/08/2009 09:09 AM, Rich Megginson wrote:
> Andrey Ivanov wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> 2009/12/8 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> The 389 team is pleased to announce the availability of
Release
>>>>> Candidate 2 of version 1.2.5.
>>
>> Well, this time the installation (compiled from sources) was ok.
I''ve
>> also imported my ldif export from 1.1 server.
> Excellent - good to know.
>> The only catch was the
>> syntax check (nsslapd-syntaxcheck: on)  -  had to disable it because
>> of some expiration dates of Generalized Time syntax that were rather
>> approximative (something like X-expirationDate: 201012). The
>> telephoneNumber, on the other hand, is not validated, as far as i
>> understand...
> You have attribute values that use telephoneNumber syntax, that are 
> not correct syntax, that the server accepts?
I think Andrey is just referring to the fact that the Telephone Number 
syntax is "loose".  It is simply defined as a
"PrintableString" in RFC
4517.  We do validate that it meets this criteria, however it''s
unlikely
that one would have something in there that violates the syntax.  The 
Generalized Time syntax is highly structured on the other
hand.
>> -- 
>> 389 users mailing list
>> 389-users@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
>
> -- 
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-users@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users

>>
>> You have attribute values that use telephoneNumber syntax, that are not
>> correct syntax, that the server accepts?
>
> I think Andrey is just referring to the fact that the Telephone Number
> syntax is "loose".  It is simply defined as a
"PrintableString" in RFC 4517.
Yes, that''s exactly what i meant. I can put "toto" in the
telephoneNumber and it works. But i suppose it corresponds to the
RFCs.