> > > So the problem is that SYNTAX is not inherited from the parent? > > What version of 389-ds-base are you using? > problem is that the syntax is rejected completely, and the load isn't allowed. And sorry, neglected to say what version in my last email: Both 389-ds-base-1.2.6-0.1.a1.fc13.i686 and 389-ds-base-1.2.6-0.1.a1.fc13.x86_64 did it. Note that my install is pretty recent/fresh, and was actually installed at the current (and most recent) version; it was not installed at an older version and upgraded, patched, etc. > I'm not sure. I know this works in 389-ds-base 1.2.6 - for example, see > 00core.ldif - there are several examples of attribute types which just > specify the SUP and not the syntax: > attributeTypes: ( 2.5.4.43 NAME 'initials' > SUP name > X-ORIGIN 'RFC 4519' ) > > you're right - there are; just noticed that. So, given the extremely simple example I posted and the fact that it fails, any thoughts? If you do that same single simple schema (or any custom schema at all that uses a superior attribute in an attributetype definition) do you get a failure as well, or is it just something that happens to me? I assume the initial loadout of the schema, which builds the base schema from 00core and all the others, happens in a way that is different than the dynamic reload task? Is it maybe just that the dynamic reload task doesn't like superior attributes, but the directory server itself is quite ok with them? Brian LaMere -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20100831/900f511e/attachment.html
