On Nov 8, 2013, at 4:50 PM, Rich Megginson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/08/2013 02:10 PM, Michael Gettes wrote: >> As I currently understand things, 389 1.2 is available via RPM dist channels >> (including epel test using rmeggins people repo) > > . . . and really isn't fully supported. My main intention for providing EL6 > binaries was to give a preview of upcoming features that were going in to > RHEL6. There isn't much difference between my personal epel repo and the > version in RHEL6. > >> and 1.3 is available by source tarball. > > Binary packages are available for Fedora . . . i should have mentioned - i need for RHEL6. > >> >> due to how my organization handles firewall access, it is quite the PITA to >> build network source based software which makes it rather difficult for me >> to deploy 1.3 in test or prod. > > What exactly is the issue? > >> If there was any chance of getting 1.3 (and beyond) via a standard RPM dist >> channel, > > I don't know what that would be. I don't know if there is a "forward" > looking EPEL6 category - most users using EPEL6 want older, more stable > software - I suppose you would need some sort of "bleeding edge yet fully > supported and supportable" software channel. > > My fedorapeople repo is not really a "standard RPM dist channel". > >> I would be willing to run it, maybe even in production! as i attempted to >> build 1.3 it had requirements which would have necessitated building via git >> or something similar and i got stuck cuz of how we do things here (no >> comment on how we do things, please). > > No comment, just want to understand what exactly the problem is. > What problems did you have building 1.3? Was it 1.3.1? 1.3.2? 1.3.2 - the one with the SASL init hang. i went to build the LDAPSDK and it recommends getting source via (need to go find it…) found it - https://wiki.mozilla.org/LDAP_C_SDK says to do cvs my org blocks outbound access and it is a real PITA to work with the security team to get things opened up. on the plus side - i know other similar orgs to mine who have gotten bit and we haven’t so i guess our strong firewall approach “appears” to work for now. does this help? i could just be doing something stupid in not realizing how to build the software…. but, again, i would most prefer not to build. i understand running “bleeding edge” in prod can be risky. but if probs are being fixed out in the bleeding edge, i can make a case for it. the support via this mailing list has been, frankly, better than most vended software i have dealt with in my career. THANK YOU! so the risk seems to be quite low at this point given the quality of the people involved. /mrg > >> >> if i have any of this wrong, i’d greatly appreciate being corrected. >> pointers welcome. >> >> like i said, something to consider. >> >> have a great weekend all! >> >> /mrg >> >> -- >> 389 users mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users >
-- 389 users mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
