On 25/02/15 15:37, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
IMO, we should care only about IPA configured plugins, we cant handle
everything, what users added there.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Martin Basti wrote:
* All plugins are migrated into new configuration style.
* I left attribute uniqueness plugin disabled, cn=uid
uniqueness,cn=plugins,cn=config is checking the same attribute.
* POST_UPDATE plugin for uid removed, I moved it to update file. Is
it okay Alexander? I haven't found reason why we need to do it in
So I looked up the original thread and since there are three different
ways of defining uniqueness plugin's configuration, update plugin was to
me the only way to handle all different configuration types. In general
we cannot rely on the fact that FreeIPA deployment only contains
FreeIPA-defined plugin configurations.
If user adds an own plugin configuration there, the one should keep
responsibility to test, if the plugin configuration still works after
the IPA upgrade.
We can't keep what user want, and what IPA needs in all cases, we would
break IPA or users expectations, or both.
In this case we can add detection of conflicts and print errors during
upgrade, but we cant fix plugins which user created. If we want to
handle user custom configuration, we will need to add detection for lot
of things during upgrade not just uid uniqueness plugin.
Freeipa-devel mailing list