[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [Fwd: Re: Bug(?) With OpenLDAP 2.3.32]
- To: openldap-software@openldap.org
- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Bug(?) With OpenLDAP 2.3.32]
- From: "Gavin Henry" <ghenry@suretecsystems.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:01:26 -0000 (UTC)
- Cc: daniel@ncsu.edu
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <52683.24.163.106.248.1169664797.squirrel@webmail.ncsu.edu>
- References: <52683.24.163.106.248.1169664797.squirrel@webmail.ncsu.edu>
- User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a-1
<quote who="daniel@ncsu.edu">
> Dooh, sorry, this was supposed to go to the list instead of you directly.
>
> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: Re: Bug(?) With OpenLDAP 2.3.32
> From: daniel@ncsu.edu
> Date: Wed, January 24, 2007 1:51 pm
> To: "Gavin Henry" <ghenry@suretecsystems.com>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not supplying the old attribute. This particular individual has a
> double major and hence the way we are using it, he has two ou's associated
> with him.
Hi Daniel,
Sorry about this misunderstanding. Glad you got this sorted out in the end.
Gavin.
>
> Daniel
>
>> <quote who="daniel@ncsu.edu">
>>> Hi folk!
>>>
>>> We upgraded to OpenLDAP 2.3.32 recently and I ran into something that,
>>> unless I have completely lost my mind, should not be occuring:
>>>
>>> /local/ldap/data # /local/ldap/bin/ldapmodify -x -h localhost -D
>>> "cn=ldapadmin,dc=ncsu,dc=edu" -w LDAPADMINPASSWORD
>>> dn: uid=STUDENTUSERNAME,ou=students,ou=people,dc=ncsu,dc=edu
>>> changetype: modify
>>> replace: ou
>>> ou: B A - Physics
>>> ou: B S - Philosophy
>>> -
>>> replace: ncsucurriculumcode
>>> ncsucurriculumcode: PYA
>>> ncsucurriculumcode: LSL
>>>
>>> modifying entry
>>> "uid=STUDENTUSERNAME,ou=students,ou=people,dc=ncsu,dc=edu"
>>> ldap_modify: Type or value exists (20)
>>> additional info: modify/replace: ou: value #1 already exists
>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously I replaced the user's username and my ldap admin password.
>>> ;D
>>> A replace should literally be replacing the ou and ignoring what it's
>>> currently set to, correct? And since those two ou's are not the same,
>>> it
>>> should be fine? What's even more bizarre is that I didn't run into
>>> this
>>> while populating the database in the first place. Is this, perchance,
>>> fixed in 2.3.33? Thanks!
>>
>> You don't supply the old attribute value, just the new one.
>>
>> man ldapmodify
>>
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>