On 11/04/2014 12:15 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 11/04/2014 06:13 PM, Roman Naumenko wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On 11/04/2014 05:28 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:
On 11/04/2014 11:25 AM, Roman Naumenko wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014, Roman Naumenko wrote:
You definitely can set up separate instances of 389-ds.
this should be done on separate hosts than IPA masters because
otherwise you'll have a number of practical issues with
instances binding to the same LDAP/LDAPS ports and so  on.
Is 389-ds equivalent of RedHat Directory Server

Red Hat Directory Server is what is known as 389 Directory Server
(389-ds) upstream project. Essentially, it is the same code. If
specific questions about support of Red Hat Directory Server, I'd
suggest you to ask them Red Hat sales/support people (of which
neither one). ;)
Not necessarily sales people have to be involved, Centos has the
project :)
I'm pondering what's the difference between Centos and Red Hat
RHDS is the layered product.
It has 389DS package but also some other tools and utilities that
not a part of core RHEL and thus not in CentOS.
However, they are in EPEL - 389-console, 389-admin, etc.
You lost me :)
Am I understand correctly that everything is equal between centos and redhat directory servers, but redhat will have more stable code?

No, sorry.  I was talking about 389 upstream vs. RHDS.

As CentOS is just a repackager/rebuilder of RHEL packages, there is no difference between CentOS (CentOS DS) and RHEL (RHDS) once CentOS rebuilds.


Core RHEL and thus CentOS do not have all the packages that constitute RHDS as a product. Does that make sense? Fedora has everything. Upstream too. But extra packages are delivered on RHEL on top of the platform not as mut of it and thus they are not built for CentOS.

Thank you,
Dmitri Pal

Sr. Engineering Manager IdM portfolio
Red Hat, Inc.

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-users mailing list:
Go To http://freeipa.org for more info on the project

Reply via email to