[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: index corruption (1164) still present in 2.0.15 with db 3.1.17 (ITS#1359)
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 10:00:08AM -0700, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> ldapmodify(1) is liberal and doesn't require the final "-"
> (for compatibility with slapd.replog(5)), but it does
> require them for separation purposes.
That was my impression aswell. Now I am off to kick Graham :-)
Regardless of this it is very surprising that the same set of
modifications run through two reasonably well behaved clients
should give different results...