On 04/02/2013 04:53 PM, Ana Krivokapic wrote: > On 04/02/2013 12:12 PM, Martin Kosek wrote: >> On 04/02/2013 11:57 AM, Ana Krivokapic wrote: >>> On 03/11/2013 10:26 AM, Martin Kosek wrote: >>>> On 03/06/2013 01:07 PM, Petr Spacek wrote: >>>>> On 6.3.2013 09:32, Martin Kosek wrote: >>>>>> + error=u'CNAME record is not allowed to coexist with any >>>>>> other record'), >>>>> Sorry for nitpicking again, but I would add note '(RFC 1034, section >>>>> 3.6.2)'. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you! >>>>> >>>> Fixed. >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Freeipa-devel mailing list >>>> Freeipa-devel@redhat.com >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel >>> Patches 379 and 380 need rebasing. >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Ana Krivokapic >>> Associate Software Engineer >>> FreeIPA team >>> Red Hat Inc. >>> >> Rebased patches attached. >> >> Martin > > The first patch (schema update) correctly changes both CNAME and DNAME > attributes to single valued attributes. > > I tested the newly introduced validation rules, trying to add: > * more than 1 cname record with the same name > * cname + ptr > * cname + dname > * cname + any other record > * more than 1 dname > * dname + ns > * dname + ns (root zone) > > As expected, validation fails for all the above cases except the last > one (dname + ns in the root zone). > > ACK >
Thanks. Pushed to master. Martin _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list Freeipa-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
