Brian LaMere wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Rich Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com > <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com>> wrote: > > That was an early alpha version that was only in testing and > should not > have been pushed to stable (not sure how that happened). I strongly > encourage you to use 389-ds-base-1.2.6-1. This is now in the testing > repos and will be pushed to stable at the end of this week. > > > oops - well, maybe that will explain the other (actual) problem I had > after the schema update. I'll post on that when I get back to work > tomorrow and can describe it; it's something that I can only find/see > within the 389-console. > > > Yes, bugzilla does allow you to mark attachments as private. But > is it > possible to reproduce this issue with just some dummy data to > avoid the > risk entirely? And if it is indeed a bug, we should open a > bugzilla for > this issue. > > > I didn't create any actual entries, it was just definitions for > attributetypes and objectclasses. I don't really see much of a risk > (necessarily?) unless my schema was just insanely broken; I don't use > those two attributes anyway ;) happy to send the schema to whomever > to try on their own, or I could just spin up a new EC2 instance and > reload it "fresh" again and see if it happens again if loaded on an > ec2 i686 instance... > > However, if what I'm using is an unstable version, it could just be > that it was triggered by doing a reload (regardless of content), and > had nothing to do with my schema at all. Is that more likely? It could be - a1 had many bugs in it - was not intended for production use. schema reload does pretty much the same schema file processing as the server does when it starts up - it does process 00core.ldif and the other schema files. > > Brian LaMere > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
