> From: Chris Hecker
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 4:21 PM
>
> I am going to need to make the exact same update at some point, so a report
> back on how it went would be great!
We finally finished this upgrade last week, and it went fine. Upgraded the
schema on everything first, then one
We are ready to schedule this update, so I thought I'd try just one more
time to see if there were any other thoughts on this plan or any known
issues that might occur that would be problematic.
Thanks much.
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Henson [mailto:paul.b.hen...@gmail.com] On Beha
> From: Chris Hecker
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 4:21 PM
>
> I am going to need to make the exact same update at some point, so a
> report back on how it went would be great!
Heh, no chance I could talk you into going first ;)?
We will probably be working on this in January, I'll hang on
> From: Todd Grayson
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 3:07 PM
>
> From a pure LDAP perspective; You should be able to update schema in an
> unobtrusive way as long as none of the attributes are "mandatory" for the
> objectClass.
All of the new attributes are optional, so no problem there.
>
I am going to need to make the exact same update at some point, so a report
back on how it went would be great!
Thanks,
Chris
On Dec 3, 2014 2:28 PM, "Paul B. Henson" wrote:
> We currently have three Kerberos servers running 1.9.4 using the LDAP
> backend and are planning to upgrade to 1.13. Hi
>From a pure LDAP perspective; You should be able to update schema in an
unobtrusive way as long as none of the attributes are "mandatory" for the
objectClass. If upon examination of the schema any of those new attributes
are mandatory as opposed to optional, then you have a requirement to update
