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

Re: large ldap server recommendation

To: openldap-software@openldap.org
Subject: Re: large ldap server recommendation
From: Andreas Hasenack <ahasenack@terra.com.br>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:56:03 -0200
Content-disposition: inline
In-reply-to: <032101c86518$e112df30$a3389d90$@wisc.edu>
References: <1201774424.11372.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47A2AA7F.4020107@hetnet.nl> <1201873995.21124.88.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47A338AD.7040804@hetnet.nl> <032101c86518$e112df30$a3389d90$@wisc.edu>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)

On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:24:50PM -0600, Ryan Horrisberger wrote:
> same as RH's packages and will replace them--but so far it works great, and
> the upgrade was flawless (you have to rebuild the DB since it is using an
> older [better] version of bdb), and yes the package RH ships is an
> embarrassment.

I'm curious: why do all these people who purchased (expensive) RH server
licenses don't open bug reports with Redhat about their openldap
packages?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: large ldap server recommendation
  - From: Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@zimbra.com>

References:
- Re: large ldap server recommendation
  - From: Tony Earnshaw <tonni@hetnet.nl>
- Re: large ldap server recommendation
  - From: ram <ram@netcore.co.in>
- Re: large ldap server recommendation
  - From: Tony Earnshaw <tonni@hetnet.nl>
- RE: large ldap server recommendation
  - From: "Ryan Horrisberger" <rhorrisb@ssc.wisc.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: Replication errors with 2.3.40
Next by Date: Re: large ldap server recommendation
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread