RE: Undocumented slapd.conf directives (ITS#2525)

[hyc@highlandsun.com]

Hm, I may have made a mistake here. This bug report was filed against 2.1.19;
the ditContentRule code in 2.1 is behind an #ifdef SLAPD_EXTENDED_SCHEMA and
that symbol is only defined if LDAP_DEVEL is defined. As such, I don't think
ditContentRule really belongs in the 2.1 docs. I just added the description
to RE21 slapd.conf.5, perhaps I should revert it? I was just about to commit
the ITS#2920 and #3065 patches to RE21 as well.

Since the ditcontentrule documentation stated that OID macros are supported,
I think #2920 should be considered a bug, not an enhancement. But if
ditcontentrule isn't supported in 2.1 then that's moot.

  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.       Director, Highland Sun
  http://www.symas.com               http://highlandsun.com/hyc
  Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-openldap-bugs@OpenLDAP.org
> [mailto:owner-openldap-bugs@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of
> h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 8:29 PM
> To: openldap-its@OpenLDAP.org
> Subject: Re: Undocumented slapd.conf directives (ITS#2525)
>
>
> OK.  I added a few NEW_LOGGING comments, to remind whoever
> activates or
> removes NEW_LOGGING to update the manpage.
>
>
>