Gerrard Geldenhuis wrote:
>>> What is also frustrating is that the script is so quiet about why it 
>>> failed. I was running setup-ds-admin with -ddd It appears that the script 
>>> used to configure the >>admin server does net get passed the debug flags.
>>>
>>> Any further ideas?
>>>
>>>       
>> I was afraid of that.  The admin server part doesn't like it that
>> NetscapeRoot already exists, and instead of just continuing, it errors
>> and exits.  If you are a perl hacker, I suppose you could hack the
>> AdminUtil.pm and/or AdminServer.pm.
>>     
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>       
>
> Thanks, afraid not, I generally try to stay away from Perl.
>   
+1
> Is it worthwhile supporting ldif files during the initial install? It does 
> seem to add a lot of complexity.
>   
It allows you to do a lot of customization at the same time as running 
setup, using relatively simple LDIF files, without having to resort to 
writing scripts.
> For me whether I run a few scripts during installation of after does not 
> matter that much. Aesthetically it is probably nicer to have all 
> configuration in one place i.e. in the install script. It would be nice to be 
> able to specify when additional ldif files should be executed.
Yes, but that quickly gets into script territory and out of LDIF territory.
> Is that the purpose of InstallLdifFile or is that only during the slapd setup?
>   
The purpose of InstallLdifFile is to allow you to populate your data 
(i.e. your users and groups) at setup time.
> Regards
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> In order to protect our email recipients, Betfair Group use SkyScan from 
> MessageLabs to scan all Incoming and Outgoing mail for viruses.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-us...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>   

--
389 users mailing list
389-us...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

Reply via email to