Kevin M. Goess wrote:
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 01:33 pm, fedora-directory-users-request@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:Right now you have to use the same user for both the directory server and the admin server.This is a permissions problem. Did you use the same user for the directory server as for the admin server?Nope, I used ldap for the directory server, which seems to work fine, and was trying to use 'ldapas' for the admin server.
Hmm - that looks correct. If ldapas is the uid of the admin server, then it should be able to create the file local.conf in that directory.What's in the file /tmp/file2dDMoZ?$ ls -lF /tmp/file2dDMoZ -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Dec 6 13:12 /tmp/file2dDMoZAn empty file, owned by root.What is the output of ls -l admin-serv/config ?$ ls -al admin-serv/config/ total 60 drwxr-xr-x 2 ldapas ldapas 4096 2005-12-06 16:59 . drwxr-xr-x 6 ldapas ldapas 4096 2005-12-06 16:59 .. -rw------- 1 ldapas root 347 2005-12-06 16:59 adm.conf -rw------- 1 ldapas ldapas 39 2005-12-06 16:59 admpw -rw------- 1 ldapas root 3537 2005-12-06 16:59 admserv.conf -rw------- 1 ldapas root 3722 2005-12-06 16:59 console.conf -rw------- 1 ldapas root 26608 2005-12-06 16:59 httpd.conf -rw------- 1 ldapas root 4573 2005-12-06 16:59 nss.conf
On a side note, is there any reason not to use the standard redhat "ldap" user instead of "nobody" for the default suggested slapd user?You should be able to use "ldap".My impression was that "nobody" should not own any files on the filesystem.Then would this be the place to suggest making the suggested default "ldap" intead of "nobody"? I know at least one sysadmin who would be saved the trouble of pulling out his hair in handfuls when he saw important system files owned by the "nobody" user.
We will be addressing this in the next major release.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- Fedora-directory-users mailing list Fedora-directory-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
