On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 04:09:41PM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In my unprofessional opinion, I would say that it should be increased. > > Under any load openldap might as well not work with this as a problem. > > There was a stable release on 5/15 and this bug has been around for longer > > then that, so it seems as if it has be disregarded. I'm not sure how this > > works when the problem seems to be upstream though. > > It has been upgraded and I believe David is sending a note to the > maintainer with an offer to NMU it (my recommendation). I'm recompiling > it now and will forward a URL to fetch the new packages when I'm done. > > > I'm not sure what release of 1.2.10 the patch was created from, but it > > doesn't seem to apply to the latest stable or release, so I have not been > > able to test it. This leaves me in kind of an awkward position. =P > > Suggestions? > > I just tested it and David is correct (as is the patch). You'll have new > debs in the next 30 mins :-)
Do not NMU. I have a new openldap package with Dave's patch already that also includes some other things. Ben -- -----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------ / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
