Rich Megginson
2009-Dec-07 23:57 UTC
[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]
Andrey Ivanov
2009-Dec-08 07:29 UTC
[389-users] Re: [389-announce] Announcing 389 Directory Server 1.2.5 Release Candidate 2
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 bindsWhat does this fix do? The information in bugzilla is blocked and i haven''t found any git commit concerning this RFE.... @+
Rich Megginson
2009-Dec-08 15:46 UTC
Re: [389-users] Re: [389-announce] Announcing 389 Directory Server 1.2.5 Release Candidate 2
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 >
Andrey Ivanov
2009-Dec-08 16:31 UTC
Re: [389-users] Re: [389-announce] Announcing 389 Directory Server 1.2.5 Release Candidate 2
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...
Rich Megginson
2009-Dec-08 17:09 UTC
Re: [389-users] Re: [389-announce] Announcing 389 Directory Server 1.2.5 Release Candidate 2
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 >
Nathan Kinder
2009-Dec-08 17:16 UTC
Re: [389-users] Re: [389-announce] Announcing 389 Directory Server 1.2.5 Release Candidate 2
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
Andrey Ivanov
2009-Dec-08 17:26 UTC
Re: [389-users] Re: [389-announce] Announcing 389 Directory Server 1.2.5 Release Candidate 2
>> >> 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.