[SSSD] [sssd PR#113][comment] Adds an integration test for sssctl netgroup-show so that we don't regress again like we did in ticket #3267.

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/113 Title: #113: Adds an integration test for sssctl netgroup-show so that we don't regress again like we did in ticket #3267. lslebodn commented: """ On (09/01/17 12:37), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 02:10:02AM -0800, lslebodn wrote: >> I

[SSSD] Re: [PATCH] Create pidfile after responders have started

On (20/12/16 15:02), Victor Tapia wrote: >Hi Lukas, > >Just wanted to confirm your patch works for me. > Thank you very much for confirmation and contribution. It took me some times to process many mails after christmas holiday. And sorry for long delays in review process. master:

[SSSD] [sssd PR#110][comment] Add more DEBUG messages to help admins diagnose Kerberos login failures

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/110 Title: #110: Add more DEBUG messages to help admins diagnose Kerberos login failures jhrozek commented: """ Hmm, sorry, i thought I dropped the second patch some time ago already """ See the full comment at

[SSSD] [sssd PR#110][synchronized] Add more DEBUG messages to help admins diagnose Kerberos login failures

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/110 Author: jhrozek Title: #110: Add more DEBUG messages to help admins diagnose Kerberos login failures Action: synchronized To pull the PR as Git branch: git remote add ghsssd https://github.com/SSSD/sssd git fetch ghsssd pull/110/head:pr110 git

[SSSD] [sssd PR#113][comment] Adds an integration test for sssctl netgroup-show so that we don't regress again like we did in ticket #3267.

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/113 Title: #113: Adds an integration test for sssctl netgroup-show so that we don't regress again like we did in ticket #3267. jhrozek commented: """ On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 02:10:02AM -0800, lslebodn wrote: > I think you can use prefix "test_sssctl"

[SSSD] [sssd PR#113][-Changes requested] Adds an integration test for sssctl netgroup-show so that we don't regress again like we did in ticket #3267.

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/113 Title: #113: Adds an integration test for sssctl netgroup-show so that we don't regress again like we did in ticket #3267. Label: -Changes requested ___ sssd-devel mailing list --

[SSSD] [sssd PR#113][synchronized] Adds an integration test for sssctl netgroup-show so that we don't regress again like we did in ticket #3267.

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/113 Author: jhrozek Title: #113: Adds an integration test for sssctl netgroup-show so that we don't regress again like we did in ticket #3267. Action: synchronized To pull the PR as Git branch: git remote add ghsssd https://github.com/SSSD/sssd git

[SSSD] [sssd PR#106][comment] Add a new "files" provider

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/106 Title: #106: Add a new "files" provider jhrozek commented: """ All the python-related comments should be fixed and pep8 shouldn't report any more errors. """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/106#issuecomment-271395952

[SSSD] [sssd PR#106][comment] Add a new "files" provider

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/106 Title: #106: Add a new "files" provider jhrozek commented: """ On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:17:24AM -0800, Pavel Březina wrote: > So far it looks good and I have only very few comments. I didn't read the > code thoroughly yet. > > *NSS: Skip disabled

[SSSD] [sssd PR#106][comment] Add a new "files" provider

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/106 Title: #106: Add a new "files" provider jhrozek commented: """ so the solution would be to convert ent.py to not use dir internally either and I'm fine doing that if you think it would help """ See the full comment at

[SSSD] [sssd PR#106][comment] Add a new "files" provider

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/106 Title: #106: Add a new "files" provider jhrozek commented: """ Yes, but as I said in the comment (in the part you quoted out), assert_passwd_by_name won't work, because it expects dir and uses dir in its control directory: ``` Traceback (most recent

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][synchronized] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107 Author: fidencio Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler Action: synchronized To pull the PR as Git branch: git remote add ghsssd https://github.com/SSSD/sssd git fetch ghsssd pull/107/head:pr107 git checkout pr107

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][comment] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107 Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler fidencio commented: """ New version of the series has been pushed and attend both Pavel and Lukáš comments. As mentioned in the first patch this series will only work with

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][-Changes requested] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107 Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler Label: -Changes requested ___ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to

[SSSD] [sssd PR#107][synchronized] WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/107 Author: fidencio Title: #107: WATCHDOG: Avoid non async-signal-safe from the signal_handler Action: synchronized To pull the PR as Git branch: git remote add ghsssd https://github.com/SSSD/sssd git fetch ghsssd pull/107/head:pr107 git checkout pr107

[SSSD] [sssd PR#106][comment] Add a new "files" provider

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/106 Title: #106: Add a new "files" provider lslebodn commented: """ On (09/01/17 07:44), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >jhrozek commented on this pull request. > > > >> +contents = self._read_contents() >+kindex = self._get_named_line(key, contents)

[SSSD] [sssd PR#106][+Changes requested] Add a new "files" provider

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/106 Title: #106: Add a new "files" provider Label: +Changes requested ___ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

[SSSD] Re: RFC: Socket-activation, some changes in the architecture.

On (09/01/17 09:43), Simo Sorce wrote: >On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 13:35 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:25:48PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: >> > On 01/08/2017 09:44 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >> > > People, >> > > >> > > Recently I've faced some issues when testing the

[SSSD] Re: RFC: Socket-activation, some changes in the architecture.

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 13:35 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:25:48PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: > > On 01/08/2017 09:44 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > > People, > > > > > > Recently I've faced some issues when testing the socket-activation > > > working running as

[SSSD] [sssd PR#110][comment] Add more DEBUG messages to help admins diagnose Kerberos login failures

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/110 Title: #110: Add more DEBUG messages to help admins diagnose Kerberos login failures mzidek-rh commented: """ I agree with the smaller patch. I think jhrozek agreed that the changes in src/providers/krb5/krb5_child.c can be dropped. """ See the

[SSSD] Re: RFC: Socket-activation, some changes in the architecture.

On 01/09/2017 01:38 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:25:48PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: On 01/08/2017 09:44 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: People, Recently I've faced some issues when testing the

[SSSD] Re: RFC: Socket-activation, some changes in the architecture.

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:25:48PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: >> On 01/08/2017 09:44 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >> > People, >> > >> > Recently I've faced some issues when testing the socket-activation >> > working

[SSSD] Re: RFC: Socket-activation, some changes in the architecture.

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:25:48PM +0100, Pavel Březina wrote: > On 01/08/2017 09:44 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > People, > > > > Recently I've faced some issues when testing the socket-activation > > working running as sssd-user, which will force me to take a different > > path for a few

[SSSD] Re: RFC: Socket-activation, some changes in the architecture.

On 01/08/2017 09:44 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: People, Recently I've faced some issues when testing the socket-activation working running as sssd-user, which will force me to take a different path for a few things and I really would like to know your opinion on those things. So, currently,

[SSSD] Re: RFC: Socket-activation, some changes in the architecture.

On (09/01/17 11:35), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >> On (08/01/17 21:44), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >>>So, summing up the questions ... >>>- Is there any problem on calling 'setenv("_SSS_LOOPS", "NO", 0)' >>>earlier in the

[SSSD] [sssd PR#106][comment] Add a new "files" provider

URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/106 Title: #106: Add a new "files" provider pbrezina commented: """ So far it looks good and I have only very few comments. I didn't read the code thoroughly yet. *NSS: Skip disabled domains during requests* Rename to cache_req: please, because the

[SSSD] Re: Group renaming issue when "id_provider = ldap" is set.

On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 09:58:22PM +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > I've been working on rhbz#1401241 > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401241) and I'd like to > clarify some doubts that showed up. > > So, let's consider that there's a group called "foo" and user "user" > is part of

[SSSD] Re: RFC: Socket-activation, some changes in the architecture.

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > On (08/01/17 21:44), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >>diff --git a/src/util/server.c b/src/util/server.c >>index c9a2726..d9da803 100644 >>--- a/src/util/server.c >>+++ b/src/util/server.c >>@@ -445,6 +445,7 @@ static const

[SSSD] Re: RFC: Socket-activation, some changes in the architecture.

On (08/01/17 21:44), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >diff --git a/src/util/server.c b/src/util/server.c >index c9a2726..d9da803 100644 >--- a/src/util/server.c >+++ b/src/util/server.c >@@ -445,6 +445,7 @@ static const char *get_pid_path(void) > > int server_setup(const char *name, int flags, >

[SSSD] Re: RFC: Socket-activation, some changes in the architecture.

On (09/01/17 10:43), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >> On (08/01/17 21:44), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >>>People, >>> >>>Recently I've faced some issues when testing the socket-activation >>>working running as sssd-user, which

[SSSD] Re: RFC: Socket-activation, some changes in the architecture.

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > On (08/01/17 21:44), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >>People, >> >>Recently I've faced some issues when testing the socket-activation >>working running as sssd-user, which will force me to take a different >>path for a few

[SSSD] Re: RFC: Socket-activation, some changes in the architecture.

On (08/01/17 21:44), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: >People, > >Recently I've faced some issues when testing the socket-activation >working running as sssd-user, which will force me to take a different >path for a few things and I really would like to know your opinion on >those things. > >So, currently,