--On Monday, January 11, 2016 7:06 PM -0800 Ryan Tandy
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 03:48:12PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
This is fairly trivial to reproduce. As a non-privileged user, simply
do:
-h "ldap:// ldapi://slapd.sock"
It will fail to bind to 389, but bind to the LDAPI so
On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 03:48:12PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
This is fairly trivial to reproduce. As a non-privileged user, simply do:
-h "ldap:// ldapi://slapd.sock"
It will fail to bind to 389, but bind to the LDAPI socket anyway, and
continue the startup process.
I was sure I saw
On 10. jan. 2016 00:48, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
Currently, slapd will start up even if it can't bind to an interface, if more
than one potential interface is given where the bind is successful. (...)
This is fairly trivial to reproduce. As a non-privileged user, simply do:
-h "ldap:// ldapi:
On Sat, Jan 09, 2016, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> Currently, slapd will start up even if it can't bind to an interface, if
> more than one potential interface is given where the bind is successful.
FWIW: sendmail had the inverse problem and it was resolved by marking
an "interface" as optional:
D
Currently, slapd will start up even if it can't bind to an interface, if
more than one potential interface is given where the bind is successful.
This was, as best as Howard can recall, done because of ipv4/ipv6 issues on
some systems.
However, it seems to me that it should at least be possibl
