Ok.. So which is the latest stable version .. OpenLDAP and BDB ? Thanks, Sumith
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Aaron Richton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it just me or do people on this list never support problems related to > > anything but the latest release? Not everyone can immediately upgrade to the > > latest release to fix any issues they have, and they shouldn't have to > > either. Previous versions (to an extent) should be supported just like any > > other product. > > > > Well, most "I didn't expect output x" questions end up with: > > (0) This behavior is correct; we just need to figure out why/how it came > to be. This is upgrade-independent, and I think we're pretty good with > prompting users to figure out if it's the case. As an example, > > Do you have reason to believe the error is wrong? i.e., does the parent > > > of the entry you are trying to create exist, and do you have appropriate > > > access (even "disclose" comes to mind in this case, let alone write)? > > > > > > along with the excellent JLDAP code suggestions (it's been years since > I've run javac) addressed that in this instance. > > (1) This behavior is incorrect; in fact, we've already dealt with it. This > obviously requires an upgrade for resolution. Hypothesize that > situation--what's going to cause "No such object" as a lie in this > situation? Most likely would be some bdb/hdb bug. RE23 CHANGES "egrep > bdb|hdb | wc -l" shows 17 fixes since 2.3.27. Wouldn't you want those ALL > ruled out? > > (2) This behavior is incorrect; we need to work on a solution. This is > made a LOT easier when a motivated reporter is on the same page as the > developers, which pretty much means running the latest code. The only proper > alternative is writing up a clean reproduction, and if a user has that, > they'd be posting to the ITS instead of openldap-software. So to this > audience, an upgrade is near-required if it hasn't already been undertaken. > > > Underlying all of this, there's the general Good Citizen maneuver. I mean, > 2.3.27 has remote crasher vulnerabilities. Obviously that's something that > sites can choose to consciously enter into, but if you're not clearly > indicating that you're aware of that situation, we'd be amiss to NOT > recommend an upgrade. Plus, if you're correct in the contention that this is > improper behavior (#1 or #2), your next maneuver needs to be to upgrade > anyway. Bottom line...we're suggesting it because it's the right answer. >
