Pierangelo Masarati writes: >Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: >> There is only one >> database into which any entry will go, based on the DN. > > Right. However, slapadd does not behave like that, right now. It > always tries to feed database #1 (possibly skipping "cn=Monitor" and any > subordinate database).
Right, but this doesn't mean -b/-n affects which database an entry will be put in. It merely affects whether the attempt to add the entry will succeed. Which is why I've been a confused by the previous messages. >> If you just mean the user slapadds an LDIF he shouldn't have slapadded, >> well, though. The user might do lots of things he didn't intend to, >> like accidentally typing rm * instead of rm something*. > > rm has noclobber to prevent misuse. slapadd has -b/-n. s/noclobber/-i/. (noclobber prevents redirects from overwriting.) And we are talking about the case of not using either option. >> Besides, the slapadd can succeed already since there already is a >> default database to try. > > Right. I don't quite like that behavior (I don't like defaults, unless > they are very intuitive and trivial, and yes, what's intuitive and > trivial can be very subjective, so I don't like much defaults) I agree, which is why I suggested to remove it:-) But removing the default without adding auto-choice would be an option too. The default wasn't much of a problem before, but with the addition of cn=config people will need to play with multiple databases. Anyway, let's see for now if your improved error helps helps. -- Hallvard
