[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Object class violation (65)

To: Adam Williams <adam@morrison-ind.com>
Subject: Re: Object class violation (65)
From: Matthias Eichler <mylists@ame.de>
Date: 27 Oct 2002 18:31:16 +0100
Cc: "OpenLDAP.org" <openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org>
In-reply-to: <1035725879.25750.2.camel@estate1.whitemice.org>
References: <1035664952.1074.17.camel@blindzero> <1035725879.25750.2.camel@estate1.whitemice.org>

Am Son, 2002-10-27 um 14.37 schrieb Adam Williams:

Hi Adam, Hi List,

> dn: uid=root,ou=Sysusers,ou=NSS,dc=ame,dc=loc
> objectClass: sambaAccount
> uid: root
> For one, your first object is only a "sambaAccount".  An object must be
> a posixAccount as well (posixAccount + sambaAccount).  sambaAccount
> objects standing alone are not logical.

This is what I first thought about, too, but what is not the reason.
ALL the objects I posted have this problem, no matter wether it is
just a posixAccount (with the attributes of such a posixAccount) or
just a sambaAccount or both merged...:-(

Matthias

References:
- Object class violation (65)
  - From: Matthias Eichler <mylists@ame.de>
- Re: Object class violation (65)
  - From: Adam Williams <adam@morrison-ind.com>

Prev by Date: Re: 2.0.23 -> 2.1.8 migration
Next by Date: Re: Object class violation (65)
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread