On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 02:49:53PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> On 09/21/2015 01:27 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> >>Hello Sumit,
> >>>
> >>>there is next version of patch addresing your comments.
> >>>
> >>>I didn't use statement like
> >>># state->ipa_opts->id->user_map[SDAP_AT_USER_MEMBEROF].sys_name
>
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 02:33:03PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> On 09/14/2015 01:53 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> >Hi Petr,
> >
> >thank you for your patience. Both versions of your patches work as
> >expected and fixes the issues with group and nested group memberships.
> >
> >After testing a reading the
On 09/21/2015 01:27 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
Hello Sumit,
>
>there is next version of patch addresing your comments.
>
>I didn't use statement like
># state->ipa_opts->id->user_map[SDAP_AT_USER_MEMBEROF].sys_name
>because we don't have any for originalMemberOf. I'm not sure if I added
we have,
On 09/14/2015 01:53 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
Hi Petr,
thank you for your patience. Both versions of your patches work as
expected and fixes the issues with group and nested group memberships.
After testing a reading the current sources I think the best solution
might be a slight variant of your
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 03:28:09PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> On 09/04/2015 03:24 PM, Petr Cech wrote:
> >On 09/03/2015 03:45 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> >>>I tried both case. I used only originalMemberOf and I had right
> >>>hostgroups,
> no user groups. Then I used only memberOf and I had no
On 09/04/2015 03:24 PM, Petr Cech wrote:
On 09/03/2015 03:45 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
I tried both case. I used only originalMemberOf and I had right
hostgroups,
>no user groups. Then I used only memberOf and I had no hostgroups,
right
>user groups.
>
>So I did little hack, we could use both
On 09/03/2015 03:45 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
I tried both case. I used only originalMemberOf and I had right hostgroups,
>no user groups. Then I used only memberOf and I had no hostgroups, right
>user groups.
>
>So I did little hack, we could use both memberOf. The patch is attached and
>it works
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 01:50:35PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> On 09/03/2015 10:08 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 09:54:51AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >>On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 09:31:07AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> >>>On 09/03/2015 08:18 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 06:15:24AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (02/09/15 18:06), Petr Cech wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >reverting this commit "5e9bc89b28f1ac3ce573ecdece74fe9623580c28" fixed the
> >problem for me. So is the original commit no longer valid?
> >
> I'm little bit worried about
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 09:54:51AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 09:31:07AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> > On 09/03/2015 08:18 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > >On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 06:15:24AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> > >>On (02/09/15 18:06), Petr Cech wrote:
> > >>>Hi,
>
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 09:54:51AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 09:31:07AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> > On 09/03/2015 08:18 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > >On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 06:15:24AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> > >>On (02/09/15 18:06), Petr Cech wrote:
> > >>>Hi,
>
On 09/03/2015 08:18 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 06:15:24AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (02/09/15 18:06), Petr Cech wrote:
Hi,
reverting this commit "5e9bc89b28f1ac3ce573ecdece74fe9623580c28" fixed the
problem for me. So is the original commit no longer valid?
I'm
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 09:31:07AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> On 09/03/2015 08:18 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 06:15:24AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >>On (02/09/15 18:06), Petr Cech wrote:
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>reverting this commit
On 09/03/2015 10:08 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 09:54:51AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 09:31:07AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
On 09/03/2015 08:18 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 06:15:24AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (02/09/15 18:06),
Hi,
reverting this commit "5e9bc89b28f1ac3ce573ecdece74fe9623580c28" fixed
the problem for me. So is the original commit no longer valid?
Regards,
Petr
>From 3a161789fc8ef82f4636e55369f4c5b04985f7c2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Petr Cech
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:51:12
On (02/09/15 18:06), Petr Cech wrote:
>Hi,
>
>reverting this commit "5e9bc89b28f1ac3ce573ecdece74fe9623580c28" fixed the
>problem for me. So is the original commit no longer valid?
>
I'm little bit worried about reverting this patch.
Did you test the bug which was fixed by this commit.
@see
16 matches
Mail list logo