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

[Tony Earnshaw <tonye@billy.demon.nl>]

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.

--Tonni

-- 

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
http://www.billy.demon.nl