Comment 6 for bug 14929

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Torsten Landschoff wrote:

> > Justification: renders package unusable
>
> Come on...

well, since I did manage to get it going, I'll grant that the package
isn't unusable... but it was upon 1st install !

> > 1) use of ldapi:/// fails:
> > ldap_url_parse_ext(ldapi:///????x-mod=0777)
> > daemon: bind(10) failed errno=2 (No such file or directory)
> > slap_open_listener: failed on ldapi:///????x-mod=0777
> >
> > The cause seems to be that the ./configure script had bad settings -
> > the binary expects /var/run/run/ldapi instead of the proper
> > /var/run/ldapi
>
> Very interesting. I got reports by a tester that this is the case and
> some workaround but forgot about it.

I've not heard of many people using ldapi: - always wondered why...
seems like a much lower overhead (if your server happens to be on
the same box)

> > 2) error in parsing the saved ldif file:
> > Setting up slapd (2.2.23-1) ...
> > Enabling LDAPv2 support... already enabled.
> > Updating config access directives... done.
> > Moving old database directories to /var/backups:
> > Loading from /var/backups/slapd-2.1.30-3:
> > - directory dc=cavein,dc=org... slapadd: could not parse entry
> > (line=316) failed.
>
> That's quite known an issue. If you consider this grave, we can't put
> slapd 2.2 in Debian as 2.2 fails on a lot of 2.1 and even more of 2.0
> directories. I am working on a README type upgrade document which tells
> the user.

Ah... 'twasn't known by me - and took a bit of digging to find it, but
as long as it is documented, I'm fine with setting this to whatever
priority you are happy with.

> > Well, that was a helpful message (I know, not your fault) :)
>
> I think it is - at least you got the line number...

ah, but the line number is the last line of the stanza... it gave me
relatively little clue upon what the real issue was (some several lines
above the reported line)

> > uidNumber: 0000
> > gidNumber: 0000
> >
> > but slapadd barfs on that, saying it is an invalid number! Changing
> > the 0000 to 0 for the user and group settings worked fine
>
> ... and another incompatibility.

Cool - I'm not trying to be a prick about this - I just wanted to make
sure that we wind up with something that wont break people out of the
box. If we can tell people they might have to edit the ldif file and
rerun the install, then I'm happy...

Oh, and by the way - editing the ldif file and re-running the install
did work just fine... thanks :)
--
Rick Nelson
<xtifr> direct brain implants :)
<knghtbrd> xtifr - yah, then using computers would actually require some
           of these idiots to think!
<knghtbrd> ;>