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

RE: ldapsearch 2.0 vs. 2.1 against a netware LDAP server

lør, 17.04.2004 kl. 14.06 skrev Howard Chu:

> > Much more than a year ago on this list, a 2.0.x user reported that
> > eDirectory wanted SSL for AUTH and that her 2.0.x couldn't use it. She
> > used stunnel and that worked. Maybe you have a similar
> > problem? LDAP v3
> > is LDAP v3  and there shouldn't be any difference between 2.0
> > and 2.1 in that respect.
> But 2.0.27 also has SSL support. Whether or not RedHat's build of it does is
> a separate question. Overall, it's not very enlightening for us to discuss
> obsolete versions, or builds whose configured features are unknown to us.
> Just install 2.1 on the RedHat machine and forget about the bundled 2.0 code.

I couldn't agree more, being a "keep up to date" sort of person. But
many (RedHat) people have little knowledge of Openldap and simply string
along with what RedHat gives them of software and updates - and
(sometimes unfortunately) expect it to work faultlessly. If they accept
(RHEL3, at any rate) the RedHat Openldap standard "upgrade", they get
2.1.22 - which with regard to stability is a far worse alternative than
2.0.27. Granted their quarrel is with RedHat rather than Openldap, but a
hint in such situations can surely never be amiss.



Kattekots op de vloer
na de moeë thuiskomst,
weinig walg verwekt.
Getrouw als kind
de kat heet welkom,
wellicht nog knabbels krijgt.

mail: billy - at - billy.demon.nl