--On Thursday, April 2, 2020 9:09 PM +0100 Howard Chu wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
I think the following ITSes would be good to add for 2.4.50. Any
objections?
ITS#7074 - Fix olcDatabaseDummy init for windows
ITS#9003 - Fix slapd-ldap(5) man page to note idassert-authzfrom policy
dif
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> I think the following ITSes would be good to add for 2.4.50. Any objections?
>
> ITS#7074 - Fix olcDatabaseDummy init for windows
> ITS#9003 - Fix slapd-ldap(5) man page to note idassert-authzfrom policy
> difference
> ITS#9181 - Fix race on Windows mutex init
> ITS#
I think the following ITSes would be good to add for 2.4.50. Any
objections?
ITS#7074 - Fix olcDatabaseDummy init for windows
ITS#9003 - Fix slapd-ldap(5) man page to note idassert-authzfrom policy
difference
ITS#9181 - Fix race on Windows mutex init
ITS#9182 - pcache: fix private DB init
T
--On Saturday, January 11, 2020 10:42 AM +0100 Michael Ströder
wrote:
There are a few open ITSes that need addressing before I can proceed
with a testing call.
The fix for ITS#9124 is pretty urgent. So other ITS should not block
releasing 2.4.49.
Now that ITS#9150 is addressed, which w
On 1/10/20 11:25 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Friday, January 10, 2020 6:06 PM +0100 Clément OUDOT
> wrote:
>> I would like to know if there was some date planned for 2.4.49, and if
>> this ITS could be added to this release:
>> http://www.openldap.org/its/index.cgi/Software%20Bugs?id=914
--On Friday, January 10, 2020 6:06 PM +0100 Clément OUDOT
wrote:
Le 01/11/2019 à 17:31, Quanah Gibson-Mount a écrit :
A few commits stacking up, so would like to review them for inclusion
in an eventual 2.4.49.
Hello,
I would like to know if there was some date planned for 2.4.49, an
Le 01/11/2019 à 17:31, Quanah Gibson-Mount a écrit :
> A few commits stacking up, so would like to review them for inclusion
> in an eventual 2.4.49.
Hello,
I would like to know if there was some date planned for 2.4.49, and if
this ITS could be added to this release:
http://www.openldap.org/
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 at 10:37 pm, Howard Chu wrote:
> We have a project policy of not including content we can't support. And as
> a general
> circumstance, if we don't use something ourselves, then we aren't in a
> position to support it.
> Are you going to be here for the next 20+ years to suppor
Hugh McMaster wrote:
> PKG_CONFIG_PATH will help you here, but it's just one option. You
> could also use a (s)chroot or other containers.
When someone tells you they don't like something because it adds extra steps,
suggesting *even more* additional steps is not a smart response.
>> So from an a
Hugh McMaster wrote:
> Hi Howard,
>
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 at 01:59, Howard Chu wrote:
>> AFAICS it is just another moving part that breaks. It doesn't provide any
>> information.
>> To use it you have to know whether to look in the /usr configs or /usr/local
>> (or other places),
>
> pkg-config
Hi Howard,
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 at 01:59, Howard Chu wrote:
> AFAICS it is just another moving part that breaks. It doesn't provide any
> information.
> To use it you have to know whether to look in the /usr configs or /usr/local
> (or other places),
pkg-config automatically knows where the head
Hugh McMaster wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 21:59, Howard Chu wrote:
>> Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>>> Howard, what's your opinion/thought on adding this for master/RE25? Ryan
>>> tested it and it worked for him.
>>
>> My personal opinion is that pkg-config is garbage and in all my experience
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 21:59, Howard Chu wrote:
> Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> > Howard, what's your opinion/thought on adding this for master/RE25? Ryan
> > tested it and it worked for him.
>
> My personal opinion is that pkg-config is garbage and in all my experience it
> has
> only ever preve
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Friday, November 22, 2019 9:14 AM +1100 Hugh McMaster
> wrote:
>
>
>> Any chance that ITS#8996 could be included? Back in April, you said
>> pkg-config support would need to wait for a 2.5 release [1], but given
>> the pace of development, that could still be m
--On Friday, November 22, 2019 9:14 AM +1100 Hugh McMaster
wrote:
Any chance that ITS#8996 could be included? Back in April, you said
pkg-config support would need to wait for a 2.5 release [1], but given
the pace of development, that could still be months or years away.
Howard, what's your
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 11:02 pm, Hugh McMaster wrote:
> Hi Quanah,
>
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 03:32, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> >
> > A few commits stacking up, so would like to review them for inclusion in
> an
> > eventual 2.4.49.
>
> Any chance that ITS#8996 could be included? Back in April, yo
--On Thursday, November 21, 2019 1:32 PM + Howard Chu
wrote:
Are you OK with the rest of the changes (outside of ITS#8753) then?
So totp isn't part of contrib in RE24, so I'll skip those changes and it
can go out with the RE25 alpha (Thinking January or so for that).
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>
>
> --On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 8:12 PM + Howard Chu
> wrote:
>
>> Ryan Tandy wrote:
ITS#9069 Do not call gnutls_global_set_mutex()
>>>
>>> Subject to hyc's approval, but I think this could go in. It's been in
>>> Debian since 10.0 and Ubuntu since 19.0
--On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 8:12 PM + Howard Chu
wrote:
Ryan Tandy wrote:
ITS#9069 Do not call gnutls_global_set_mutex()
Subject to hyc's approval, but I think this could go in. It's been in
Debian since 10.0 and Ubuntu since 19.04, no negative feedback.
OK, sounds fine then.
Ryan Tandy wrote:
>> ITS#9069 Do not call gnutls_global_set_mutex()
>
> Subject to hyc's approval, but I think this could go in. It's been in Debian
> since 10.0 and Ubuntu since 19.04, no negative feedback.
OK, sounds fine then.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.syma
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 09:31:07AM -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
ITS#8753 Set minimum GnuTLS version to 3.2.2
Not on its own. Only needed if the rest of that ITS goes (guessing no).
ITS#9069 Do not call gnutls_global_set_mutex()
Subject to hyc's approval, but I think this could go in. I
Hi Quanah,
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 03:32, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>
> A few commits stacking up, so would like to review them for inclusion in an
> eventual 2.4.49.
Any chance that ITS#8996 could be included? Back in April, you said
pkg-config support would need to wait for a 2.5 release [1], bu
A few commits stacking up, so would like to review them for inclusion in an
eventual 2.4.49.
I think all of the following look good for RE24, but wanted to confirm
specifically on (a) the GnuTLS changes, (b) the cleaner error handling
during connection setup, and (c) the Totp changes.
OpenLD
23 matches
Mail list logo
