Re: (ITS#8818) SASL_MECH is wrongly documented as user option

2018-03-14 Thread cheimes 
On 2018-03-13 18:49, Howard Chu wrote:
> It appears the doc is stale. The user-only attribute was removed from
> SASL_MECH in ITS#4327 (commit 86d10729) and apparently the docs weren't
> updated then.

Thanks for your confirmation and fixing the documentation in f183b81a!

Re: (ITS#8818) SASL_MECH is wrongly documented as user option

2018-03-13 Thread hyc 
chei...@redhat.com wrote:
> Full_Name: Christian Heimes
> Version: 2.4.45
> OS: Fedora
> URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
> Submission from: (NULL) (2001:16b8:601e:1c00:18cd:bce4:2531:fe3)
> 
> 
> SASL_MECH is documented as "This is a user-only option" in man ldap.conf,
> https://www.openldap.org/software/man.cgi?query=ldap.conf . User-only options
> are documented as "Such options are ignored if present in the ldap.conf".
> Contrary to the documentation, libldap loads SASL_MECH from global ldap.conf. 
> We
> discussed the issue in
> https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/1470#issuecomment-372602434
> 
> Is this a documentation bug or an implementation bug?

It appears the doc is stale. The user-only attribute was removed from 
SASL_MECH in ITS#4327 (commit 86d10729) and apparently the docs weren't 
updated then.

-- 
   -- Howard Chu
   CTO, Symas Corp.   http://www.symas.com
   Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
   Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/

(ITS#8818) SASL_MECH is wrongly documented as user option

2018-03-13 Thread cheimes 
Full_Name: Christian Heimes
Version: 2.4.45
OS: Fedora
URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
Submission from: (NULL) (2001:16b8:601e:1c00:18cd:bce4:2531:fe3)


SASL_MECH is documented as "This is a user-only option" in man ldap.conf,
https://www.openldap.org/software/man.cgi?query=ldap.conf . User-only options
are documented as "Such options are ignored if present in the ldap.conf".
Contrary to the documentation, libldap loads SASL_MECH from global ldap.conf. We
discussed the issue in
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/1470#issuecomment-372602434 

Is this a documentation bug or an implementation bug?