Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 04/29/2013 10:28 PM, Tomas Babej wrote:
On 04/29/2013 08:13 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Tomas Babej wrote:
On 04/25/2013 12:42 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 04/25/2013 12:29 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 25.4.2013 08:51, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 04/24/2013 08:02 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 24.4.2013 14:54, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 04/24/2013 02:51 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 23.4.2013 12:28, Tomas Babej wrote:
We should respect already configured options present in
/etc/openldap/ldap.conf when generating our own configuration.
With this patch, we only rewrite URI, BASE and TLS_CACERT
the changeConf call will fail when the file does not exist, we
want to handle that gracefully.
We also need to handle the case where these items are already
honestly not sure what the behavior should be: overwrite, warn
I am also thinking that we may want to be more cautious before
file. AFAIK, we do not need the updated file for our function,
for user convenience so that he can run ldapsearches more easily.
I see several options here that could help this goal:
1) Update ldap.conf if BASE and URI and TLS_CACERT only if these
not set. If the options are already set, we could just print a
skipped it. When I see my vanilla /etc/openldap/ldap.conf, it has
commented out, so it should be possible to implement this check.
2) Do ldap.conf changes only if a new special option is passe
3) Do not update ldap.conf when a new special option is not
If we don't need the file for our function, we can just not
at all IMO. We can document how to configure it for users who want
It was an RFE that we create this file. It is handy to have
like having it actually.
We just need to try to have a gentler touch than my first crack at
overwrote it completely. I think #1 is probably enough for now. I'm
not sure I
want to add two new options this late in the game, and the client
already has a
lot of knobs.
Yeah, I also agree that 1) is enough. It will not add any more
options and will
let us be more gentle and respectful to already existent custom user
in ldap.conf. So Tomas, this seems like the way to go :-)
I don't see the point of updating only some of these values. What
Not some of them - either all of them (BASE, URI, TLS_CACERT) when
none of them is already configured or none at all.
4) Update BASE and URI and TLS_CACERT, comment any old settings out.
This would still break an existing user configuration, we would just
tell user what we broke :-)
The following version of the patch configures (BASE, URI, TLS_CACERT)
attributes if they are not set.
However, to preserve user-friendliness, our suggested option is
an comment. See commit message for details.
Ok, this works as advertised, I just have a general question.
This could enable a mix of IPA and non-IPA settings. In my case I left
BASE configured and only URI and TLS_CACERT got set.
This could cause some unexpected results I think, depending on what
Do we rather want to punt on all of them if any of them can't be
updated? This would require a bit more code, and wouldn't be as
generic. I just wonder if this would cause subtle failures.
After IRC conversation with Rob, we decided to keep the behaviour, while
having it explicitly mentioned in the ldap.conf file.
For illustration, the ldap.conf file could look like this:
# File modified by ipa-client-install
# We do not want to break your existing configuration, hence:
# URI, BASE and TLS_CACERT have been added if they were not set.
# In case any of them were set, a comment with trailing note
# "# modified by IPA" note has been inserted.
# To use IPA server with openLDAP tools, please comment out your
# existing configuration for these options and uncomment the
# corresponding lines generated by IPA.
# LDAP Defaults
# See ldap.conf(5) for details
# This file should be world readable but not world writable.
#BASE dc=ipa,dc=example,dc=com # modified by IPA
#URI ldaps://ipa.example.com # modified by IPA
+ root_logger.info("Could not parse
To my (limited) knowledge, this would be the first Python 2.6+ feature
used in the client code. Is it OK?
Yes, we have no plans to rebase 3.x back to an older distro. It may make
backporting patches interesting at some point but we'll cross that
bridge if we come to it.
Freeipa-devel mailing list