attributes from 00core.ldif put in 99users.ldif after schema update

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



2010/8/31 Noriko Hosoi <nhosoi at redhat.com>

> Any special messages in the errors log?
>

None; once the import succeeded (previous post about superior attributes),
it succeeded without any errors.


> Server version.
>

Very fresh install.  Installed at 389-ds-base-1.2.6-0.1.a1, which is
apparently still the most updated version.


>   Is MMR 2-way?
>

yes - though, I had disabled MMR during the import (completely; I went in to
the replication tab and unchecked the "enable replica" box, which means I
had to redo the agreements too).


> Could it be possible to share the custom schema with us?
>

I could, yes - I'd rather not do it completely to the whole email list, but
it's not really all that sensitive of information so I could send it to
particular people.  I don't recall if fedora's bugzilla install allows for
making private file uploads?  Is it worth opening a bug report since it only
did it during the first load?

>
> I assume you could search x121Address and internationalISDNNumber
> attributes with the base DN "cn=schema" (i.e., they are visible on the
> Console) and restarting the server does not change it.  If that's the case,
> I think the server is in the right state now.  But we'd like to reproduce
> the problem you encountered.
>

Yes, simply removing the entries from 99user.ldif, then reloading again,
made it not repeat.  However, the first server which didn't do this did
instead do something else I noticed later; I'll bring that up in a different
post, since unlike this problem (which is almost just a bug report) the
other I noticed later is an actual issue that needs to be resolved.

One thing I realized is that the two servers aren't actually identical; the
one that grabbed those two attributes and put them in 99user.ldif is an i686
box (running in a cloud, but that shouldn't matter...the architecture might,
though).  The one that didn't exhibit that behavior was instead an x86_64
box (physical, non-vm).

Brian LaMere
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20100831/5f93d1ba/attachment.html 


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora User Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora QA]     [Fedora Triage]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Linux Apps]     [Maemo Users]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Maemo Users]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux