[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#5312) ldapmodify(1) man page claims that "changetype:" not necessary
Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> Changing the -devel thread's example a bit, I'd say 2.3 accepted one
> dangerous bug, one unambigious but possibly misleading format (a modify
> record both with and witout "add/delete/replace: attribute" lines), and
> one safe format (changetype: modify but no add/delete/replace"):
No. If you (foolishly or unluckily) have attributes in your schema named
"add", "delete", or "replace" then in <=2.3 you are completely hosed. There
are no unambiguous or safe cases in these malformed inputs.
> OTOH it would be an LDIF-compatible extension to make the attribute
> description in "attribute: value" optional after "add/replace/delete:
> attribute". Then one could omit the terminating "-" too.
Likewise, this is unsafe.
> Maybe it's time to take this to the ldapext list and hear what others
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/