Re: [Citadel Development] (no subject)

2018-01-11 Thread Robert J. Clay
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:12 AM, IGnatius T Foobar wrote: > Citadel 917, WebCit 917, libcitadel 917, textclient 917 all made it into > Debian > Testing after clean auto-builds. Nice. Indeed. Now that those made it to Testing, I'm setting up a new Debian Testing system

Re: [Citadel Development] (no subject)

2017-10-31 Thread bennabiy
posixAccount contains the uidNumber which would work. I agree, Full DN would be bad idea... some UID generation would be better. > Mon Oct 30 2017 10:11:52 AM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored >Subject: Re: [Citadel Development] (no subject) > > >> >> >

Re: [Citadel Development] (no subject)

2017-10-30 Thread IGnatius T Foobar
so either ldap:uid=blah,dc=base,dc=name or some uid which (already) exists anyway in the system?   I just wonder if there would be more confusion if someone switched their LDAP basename etc on a running system if the full DN is used... even if the users are the same, would their mail store

Re: [Citadel Development] (no subject)

2017-10-28 Thread bennabiy
is used... even if the users are the same, would their mail store disappear?     > Sat Oct 28 2017 12:54:33 AM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored >Subject: Re: [Citadel Development] (no subject) > > >Ok, getting back to LDAP Sync. This opened a big can of worms

Re: [Citadel Development] (no subject)

2017-10-27 Thread IGnatius T Foobar
Ok, getting back to LDAP Sync. This opened a big can of worms but it's going to end up a lot cleaner. Currently we map LDAP entries to Citadel accounts by using (or deriving) a uid, and then passing that through the same way we would if we were using Unix authentication. This requires a

Re: [Citadel Development] (no subject)

2017-10-25 Thread IGnatius T Foobar
Grr. In addition to OpenSSL, the new Debian also brings along libical2, which has an API change which is neither forward nor backward compatible.

Re: [Citadel Development] (no subject)

2017-10-25 Thread IGnatius T Foobar
ummm ... It looks like the patch submitted by a user back in August, in commit e42596a94e31ac9f5106f62d83dc56ddbd779b6a , may have already fixed the libssl issue. I'm going to investigate some more!

Re: [Citadel Development] (no subject)

2017-10-20 Thread bennabiy
! > Fri Oct 20 2017 04:48:25 PM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored >Subject: Re: [Citadel Development] (no subject) > > >>Seems the temporary solution would be to put libssl1.0-dev as a >>requirement > > >>instead of libssl-dev until

Re: [Citadel Development] (no subject)

2017-10-20 Thread IGnatius T Foobar
>Seems the temporary solution would be to put libssl1.0-dev as a requirement >instead of libssl-dev until the code is updated for the 1.1 api. Actually it seems that you've done the hardest part of the work already, by helping to arrive at the likely root cause: that something in

Re: [Citadel Development] (no subject)

2017-10-20 Thread bennabiy
Seems the temporary solution would be to put libssl1.0-dev as a requirement instead of libssl-dev until the code is updated for the 1.1 api. > Thu Oct 19 2017 04:11:40 PM EDT from "Robert J. Clay" <rjc...@gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [Citadel Development] (no subject) >

Re: [Citadel Development] (no subject)

2016-07-16 Thread Robert J. Clay
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 12:36 AM, IGnatius T Foobar wrote: > > Also thinking about getting rid of floors. They've never been proper > containers and the system would be simpler without them. > > And then replaced by what, if anything? It's already hard enough to organize