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

RE: Yet Another Beginner Question



Title: RE: Yet Another Beginner Question

ou is an attributetype, not an objectclass. you're probably trying to create an organizationalUnit entry that has an organizationalUnitName (or ou) attribute. try the following:

dn: ou=employees,dc=censoft,dc=com
objectclass: organizationalUnit
objectclass: top
ou: employees

-D basically allows you to specify who you are when you're doing the add operation. who you are probably has nothing to do with the data that you're adding, e.g. with the dn of the first entry in your LDIF file.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Lehrer [mailto:mark@knm.org]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:59 PM
To: jpm@Retail-SC.com
Cc: openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: Re: Yet Another Beginner Question



Thanks for the synchronization help... once I get this schema stuff
figured out, I'll be looking at that.

   As to your earlier questions, may I suggest reading the LDAPman Articles on
   http://www.ldapman.org/articles/index.html which I consider excellent.

OK, I am making a bit of progress.  One web page I found suggested
exporting Netscape's address book (which exported a file and then
caused a bus error...).

Anyway, I am trying to import this entry but my organizational unit of
"employees" doesn't exist.  How do you create a new OU?  I spent the
past couple of hours searching but this apparently isn't a problem for
anyone else.  Here's what I've tried most recently:

root@ns:/etc/openldap/schema>cat /tmp/ou.ldif
dn: ou=employees,dc=censoft,dc=com
objectclass: ou
o: Century Software
dc: censoft


And then:

root@ns:/etc/openldap/schema>ldapadd -x -D "ou=employees,dc=censoft,dc=com" -W -f /tmp/ou.ldif
Enter LDAP Password:
adding new entry "ou=employees,dc=censoft,dc=com"
ldap_add: Object class violation
        additional info: unrecognized objectClass 'ou'

ldif_record() = 65

And another question, why do the ldapadd examples specify -D when the
first line in the LDIF file is a dn?  Seems redundant...

Thanks,
Mark