the early ldapd code posted to tech a while ago looks like a good
starting point.
Henning, ¿Do you mean
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-techm=125811270127832w=2?
¿Are anyone helping Martin to develop or testing his ldapd?
* Jordi Espasa Clofent jordi.esp...@opengea.org [2010-02-22 09:29]:
the early ldapd code posted to tech a while ago looks like a good
starting point.
Henning, ¿Do you mean
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-techm=125811270127832w=2?
yup
¿Are anyone helping Martin to develop or testing his ldapd?
synrepl is completely fucked. tell news. film at 11.
* Toni Mueller openbsd-po...@oeko.net [2010-02-17 17:32]:
Hi,
who of you is using OpenLDAP in a replicated setup using syncrepl, as
opposed to slurp, and with TLS?
I found that these three configuration statements make the difference
* Toni Mueller openbsd-po...@oeko.net [2010-02-21 12:05]:
On Sun, 21.02.2010 at 11:26:27 +0100, Henning Brauer
lists-openbsdpo...@bsws.de wrote:
synrepl is completely fucked. tell news. film at 11.
Hmmm, care to explain?
cod is horrid. last not least unanaligned memory access all over
Hi,
just a quick note: this patch made the port to compile, but the
resulting package is severely broken. Amongst other problems, db 4.6 is
not recognized as a suitable backend, despite the website stating that
everything at or above db 4.4 should work.
I'm working on it, but I'm making only
Hi,
On Wed, 17.02.2010 at 17:02:16 +, Vijay Sankar vsan...@foretell.ca wrote:
FWIW here is what I did a few years ago
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=118041036902594w=2
thanks for nudging me into the right direction... see below.
For the past year I have used the port for 2.4.12
Hi,
who of you is using OpenLDAP in a replicated setup using syncrepl, as
opposed to slurp, and with TLS?
I found that these three configuration statements make the difference
between a working LDAP server and one that hangs on every 'add'
operation, requiring a 'kill -9' and a restart:
overlay
Quoting Toni Mueller openbsd-po...@oeko.net:
Hi,
who of you is using OpenLDAP in a replicated setup using syncrepl, as
opposed to slurp, and with TLS?
I found that these three configuration statements make the difference
between a working LDAP server and one that hangs on every 'add'
Hi,
On Thu, 09.07.2009 at 22:16:58 +0200, Henning Brauer
lists-openbsdpo...@bsws.de wrote:
* Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org [2009-07-09 21:14]:
Me too, but if something pulls in 2.3 as a BUILD or LIB depend, and
something else pulls in 2.4
is this really going to happen?
I don't
* Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org [2009-07-10 02:12]:
On 2009/07/09 22:16, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org [2009-07-09 21:14]:
Me too, but if something pulls in 2.3 as a BUILD or LIB depend, and
something else pulls in 2.4
is this really going to happen?
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2009/07/10 12:34, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org [2009-07-10 02:12]:
On 2009/07/09 22:16, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org [2009-07-09 21:14]:
Me too, but if something pulls in 2.3 as a
On 2009/07/10 12:34, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org [2009-07-10 02:12]:
On 2009/07/09 22:16, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org [2009-07-09 21:14]:
Me too, but if something pulls in 2.3 as a BUILD or LIB depend, and
something else
On 2009/07/10 06:11, Vijay Sankar wrote:
Stuart Henderson wrote:
that's another thing to try when I can get a bulk build machine
together then.
I have a server with a lot of diskspace, 12GB RAM (only 3.2GB is
being used), and is currently running AMD64 4.5 -stable. I have a
spare set of
Hi,
On Wed, 14.05.2008 at 04:05:28 +0200, Henning Brauer
lists-openbsdpo...@bsws.de wrote:
and makes a regular update a no-no in my eyes. I have been using
ldbm everywhere all the time, because that was the only stable backend
for years. I suspect I amnot quite alone (read:many many many
On 2009/07/09 11:31, Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 14.05.2008 at 04:05:28 +0200, Henning Brauer
lists-openbsdpo...@bsws.de wrote:
and makes a regular update a no-no in my eyes. I have been using
ldbm everywhere all the time, because that was the only stable backend
for years. I
Hi,
On Thu, 09.07.2009 at 11:25:07 +0100, Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org
wrote:
so; some developers need 2.3. other people need 2.4. others don't
nice distinction. ;-}
I have to correct myself, however, in that syncrepl synchronization
does appear to (partially) work. With bdb, I was
On 2009/07/09 16:50, Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 09.07.2009 at 11:25:07 +0100, Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org
wrote:
so; some developers need 2.3. other people need 2.4. others don't
nice distinction. ;-}
well, some other people might need 2.3 too, but I know for sure there
* Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org [2009-07-09 21:14]:
Me too, but if something pulls in 2.3 as a BUILD or LIB depend, and
something else pulls in 2.4
is this really going to happen?
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP -
On 2009/07/09 22:16, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org [2009-07-09 21:14]:
Me too, but if something pulls in 2.3 as a BUILD or LIB depend, and
something else pulls in 2.4
is this really going to happen?
i don't know.
i can definitely foresee a time where things
Marc Balmer [Tue, May 13, 2008 at 09:08:45PM +0200] wrote:
It is not yet the time to got from 2.3 series to 2.4, sorry.
Why not?
I have a very large userbase and this needs testing.
Cool. So when are you going to test this diff?
Regards,
Bernd
Bernd Ahlers wrote:
Marc Balmer [Tue, May 13, 2008 at 09:08:45PM +0200] wrote:
It is not yet the time to got from 2.3 series to 2.4, sorry.
Why not?
I have a very large userbase and this needs testing.
Cool. So when are you going to test this diff?
afaik, they removed ldbm in OpenLDAP
Marc Balmer wrote:
Bernd Ahlers wrote:
Marc Balmer [Tue, May 13, 2008 at 09:08:45PM +0200] wrote:
It is not yet the time to got from 2.3 series to 2.4, sorry.
Why not?
I have a very large userbase and this needs testing.
Cool. So when are you going to test this diff?
afaik, they removed
Thanks, needless changes removed.
$ diff -Nru openldap.orig openldap | diffstat
Makefile | 65 ++---
distinfo | 10 +++---
patches/patch-build_top_mk | 12
patches/patch-configure| 32
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 03:36:35 Dongsheng Song wrote:
Thanks, needless changes removed.
Starting to look better.
Don't remove the bdb FLAVOR.
The library versions for SHARED_LIBS should never go backwards and
there are only two digits. Set the entries to 10.0.
--
This message has been
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 03:45:38 Brad wrote:
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 03:36:35 Dongsheng Song wrote:
Thanks, needless changes removed.
Starting to look better.
Don't remove the bdb FLAVOR.
The library versions for SHARED_LIBS should never go backwards and
there are only two digits. Set
On 2008/05/13 03:45, Brad wrote:
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 03:36:35 Dongsheng Song wrote:
Thanks, needless changes removed.
What did the MAINTAINER say when you contacted him?
Starting to look better.
Don't remove the bdb FLAVOR.
ldbm backend has been dropped in 2.4, they tell everyone to
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 04:13:48 Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2008/05/13 03:45, Brad wrote:
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 03:36:35 Dongsheng Song wrote:
Thanks, needless changes removed.
What did the MAINTAINER say when you contacted him?
Starting to look better.
Don't remove the bdb
Thank you, fixed now.
2008/5/13 Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 03:45:38 Brad wrote:
The library versions for SHARED_LIBS should never go backwards and
there are only two digits. Set the entries to 10.0.
Also removing ${CONFIGURE_SHARED} from CONFIGURE_ARGS is
Am 13.05.2008 um 05:50 schrieb Dongsheng Song:
OpenLDAP updated to version 2.4.9.
Please review, test and commit. Thanks!
Dongsheng Song
OpenLDAP.diff
It is not yet the time to got from 2.3 series to 2.4, sorry.
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 12:32:52 Marc Balmer wrote:
Am 13.05.2008 um 05:50 schrieb Dongsheng Song:
OpenLDAP updated to version 2.4.9.
Please review, test and commit. Thanks!
Dongsheng Song
OpenLDAP.diff
It is not yet the time to got from 2.3 series to 2.4, sorry.
Why not?
--
Am 13.05.2008 um 20:34 schrieb Brad:
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 12:32:52 Marc Balmer wrote:
Am 13.05.2008 um 05:50 schrieb Dongsheng Song:
OpenLDAP updated to version 2.4.9.
Please review, test and commit. Thanks!
Dongsheng Song
OpenLDAP.diff
It is not yet the time to got from 2.3 series
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 15:08:45 Marc Balmer wrote:
Am 13.05.2008 um 20:34 schrieb Brad:
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 12:32:52 Marc Balmer wrote:
Am 13.05.2008 um 05:50 schrieb Dongsheng Song:
OpenLDAP updated to version 2.4.9.
Please review, test and commit. Thanks!
Dongsheng Song
* Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-13 10:24]:
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 04:13:48 Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2008/05/13 03:45, Brad wrote:
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 03:36:35 Dongsheng Song wrote:
Thanks, needless changes removed.
What did the MAINTAINER say when you contacted him?
But for OpenBSD 4.3 or later users, in the ports, they can't use bdb
with openldap is a bad thing.
2008/5/14 Marc Balmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Am 13.05.2008 um 20:34 schrieb Brad:
It is not yet the time to got from 2.3 series to 2.4, sorry.
Why not?
I have a very large userbase and this
OpenLDAP updated to version 2.4.9.
Please review, test and commit. Thanks!
Dongsheng Song
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /var/cvs/OpenBSD/ports/databases/openldap/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.83
diff -u -p -r1.83 Makefile
---
On Monday 12 May 2008 23:50:26 Dongsheng Song wrote:
OpenLDAP updated to version 2.4.9.
Please review, test and commit. Thanks!
Dongsheng Song
This is a pretty bad attempt at an update. Almost every file you touched
has changes which are pointless or just plain wrong.
--
This message has
36 matches
Mail list logo
