Hi all,
I recognize 389 is a community project and asking for timelines can be problematic. Right now, I am sorta stuck between a rock and a hard place. In production, I am on 1.2.11.15 which has problems that are fixed by 1.2.11.28. I have 1.2.11.28 in test and fixes all my prod problems but introduces a new problem which makes it rather difficult to manage the environment and it would appear this will be corrected in 1.2.11.29. So, I am a little curious as to when we might see 29. I do see on the roadmap 29 has 4 closed and 5 active but no date set.
I’m wondering if anyone would want to out on a limb and guesstimate - are we thinking days or a couple of weeks or several weeks or any estimate would be so appreciated. No, I will not hold anyone to anything - I can’t. I’m just trying to gauge things for internal planning estimates recognizing I have no control over this process. (yeah, i know, so why bother? cuz, i have to try).
Lastly, although I am on RHEL6 and have RHEL support, I don’t have RHEL DS support. I find the 389 community generally excellent. I have been trying to keep to what’s available in the repo but, as it would appear, I am now going to have to go with what’s available by source. So, if I go with the source route for maintenance… should I move from the 1.2.11 line to 1.3.1? I am not sure I fully appreciate the differences. I get the sense 1.3.1 is where the current effort is really at and 1.2.11 is in maintenance, but I could be all wrong. Any perspective is appreciated here as well. I have read through the site and it isn't directly obvious.
Many thanks! Especially to the fine dev team!
/mrg
On 04/03/2014 08:53 AM, Michael Gettes wrote:
Hi all,
I recognize 389 is a community project and asking for timelines can be problematic. Right now, I am sorta stuck between a rock and a hard place. In production, I am on 1.2.11.15 which has problems that are fixed by 1.2.11.28. I have 1.2.11.28 in test and fixes all my prod problems but introduces a new problem which makes it rather difficult to manage the environment and it would appear this will be corrected in 1.2.11.29.
What is the new problem?
Note that for EL6, you should really use the version provided by the OS. The "epel6" packages are really for "bleeding edge" testing of new features/patches. However, if there is some feature in the "epel6" packages that you require, that is not in the OS packages, then I guess you'll just have to keep using the "epel6" packages indefinitely.
So, I am a little curious as to when we might see 29. I do see on the roadmap 29 has 4 closed and 5 active but no date set.
I’m wondering if anyone would want to out on a limb and guesstimate - are we thinking days or a couple of weeks or several weeks or any estimate would be so appreciated. No, I will not hold anyone to anything - I can’t. I’m just trying to gauge things for internal planning estimates recognizing I have no control over this process. (yeah, i know, so why bother? cuz, i have to try).
Lastly, although I am on RHEL6 and have RHEL support, I don’t have RHEL DS support. I find the 389 community generally excellent. I have been trying to keep to what’s available in the repo but, as it would appear, I am now going to have to go with what’s available by source.
I'm not sure what you mean by "what's available in the repo" vs. "what's available by source".
So, if I go with the source route for maintenance… should I move from the 1.2.11 line to 1.3.1? I am not sure I fully appreciate the differences.
In general, I would suggest don't upgrade to a new major version unless you absolutely need to.
I get the sense 1.3.1 is where the current effort is really at and 1.2.11 is in maintenance, but I could be all wrong.
Yes. I guess you could consider 1.2.11 is definitely in maintenance mode - only critical fixes will go into 1.2.11, almost no new features. 1.3.1 could be considered "stable". The real effort from the dev side is in 1.3.2 and later.
Any perspective is appreciated here as well. I have read through the site and it isn't directly obvious.
Many thanks! Especially to the fine dev team!
/mrg
-- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
On Apr 3, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 08:53 AM, Michael Gettes wrote:
Hi all,
I recognize 389 is a community project and asking for timelines can be problematic. Right now, I am sorta stuck between a rock and a hard place. In production, I am on 1.2.11.15 which has problems that are fixed by 1.2.11.28. I have 1.2.11.28 in test and fixes all my prod problems but introduces a new problem which makes it rather difficult to manage the environment and it would appear this will be corrected in 1.2.11.29.
What is the new problem?
The new problem is what I reported in 47758 which crashes my master servers using the console. the ticket got closed out as a duplicate as you guys understand the problem and it would appear it will be corrected in .29.
Note that for EL6, you should really use the version provided by the OS. The "epel6" packages are really for "bleeding edge" testing of new features/patches. However, if there is some feature in the "epel6" packages that you require, that is not in the OS packages, then I guess you'll just have to keep using the "epel6" packages indefinitely.
ok.
So, I am a little curious as to when we might see 29. I do see on the roadmap 29 has 4 closed and 5 active but no date set.
I’m wondering if anyone would want to out on a limb and guesstimate - are we thinking days or a couple of weeks or several weeks or any estimate would be so appreciated. No, I will not hold anyone to anything - I can’t. I’m just trying to gauge things for internal planning estimates recognizing I have no control over this process. (yeah, i know, so why bother? cuz, i have to try).
Lastly, although I am on RHEL6 and have RHEL support, I don’t have RHEL DS support. I find the 389 community generally excellent. I have been trying to keep to what’s available in the repo but, as it would appear, I am now going to have to go with what’s available by source.
I'm not sure what you mean by "what's available in the repo" vs. "what's available by source”.
ya know, i am not really sure either. but you’re response reinforces in my mind that something weird is going on here and i have to have a chat with my sysadmins as to why i am not seeing what i should be seeing in the EPEL repos - we have firewall stuff means I am not in full control of how i get stuff. OR, i just go with source for 29 when it comes out and wait for the OS dist to catch up. That might be the path of least resistance, but i think i still need to resolve my EPEL issues with my sysadmins.
So, if I go with the source route for maintenance… should I move from the 1.2.11 line to 1.3.1? I am not sure I fully appreciate the differences.
In general, I would suggest don't upgrade to a new major version unless you absolutely need to.
so with this advice, i am reading i should stay on the 1.2.11 line and fix my EPEL issues.
THANK YOU!
/mrg
On 04/03/2014 09:30 AM, Michael Gettes wrote:
On Apr 3, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 08:53 AM, Michael Gettes wrote:
Hi all,
I recognize 389 is a community project and asking for timelines can be problematic. Right now, I am sorta stuck between a rock and a hard place. In production, I am on 1.2.11.15 which has problems that are fixed by 1.2.11.28. I have 1.2.11.28 in test and fixes all my prod problems but introduces a new problem which makes it rather difficult to manage the environment and it would appear this will be corrected in 1.2.11.29.
What is the new problem?
The new problem is what I reported in 47758 which crashes my master servers using the console. the ticket got closed out as a duplicate as you guys understand the problem and it would appear it will be corrected in .29.
And that problem is entirely due to running "bleeding edge" software - a new patch/feature urgently requested to be in EL6.6 that we didn't completely backport to epel6. If you were running the standard 389-ds-base in EL6.5 you would not have seen this issue. The 389-ds-base in epel6 contains patches intended for EL6.6 but which have not yet been fully tested. The only way you could get into a real bind is if you have run into an issue due to be fixed in EL6.6 that you urgently need and can't wait for it to be released through the usual EL6.6 channels.
Note that for EL6, you should really use the version provided by the OS. The "epel6" packages are really for "bleeding edge" testing of new features/patches. However, if there is some feature in the "epel6" packages that you require, that is not in the OS packages, then I guess you'll just have to keep using the "epel6" packages indefinitely.
ok.
So, I am a little curious as to when we might see 29. I do see on the roadmap 29 has 4 closed and 5 active but no date set.
I’m wondering if anyone would want to out on a limb and guesstimate - are we thinking days or a couple of weeks or several weeks or any estimate would be so appreciated. No, I will not hold anyone to anything - I can’t. I’m just trying to gauge things for internal planning estimates recognizing I have no control over this process. (yeah, i know, so why bother? cuz, i have to try).
Lastly, although I am on RHEL6 and have RHEL support, I don’t have RHEL DS support. I find the 389 community generally excellent. I have been trying to keep to what’s available in the repo but, as it would appear, I am now going to have to go with what’s available by source.
I'm not sure what you mean by "what's available in the repo" vs. "what's available by source”.
ya know, i am not really sure either. but you’re response reinforces in my mind that something weird is going on here and i have to have a chat with my sysadmins as to why i am not seeing what i should be seeing in the EPEL repos - we have firewall stuff means I am not in full control of how i get stuff. OR, i just go with source for 29 when it comes out and wait for the OS dist to catch up. That might be the path of least resistance, but i think i still need to resolve my EPEL issues with my sysadmins.
What is it exactly that you are not seeing in the EPEL repos that you are expecting to see?
So, if I go with the source route for maintenance… should I move from the 1.2.11 line to 1.3.1? I am not sure I fully appreciate the differences.
In general, I would suggest don't upgrade to a new major version unless you absolutely need to.
so with this advice, i am reading i should stay on the 1.2.11 line and fix my EPEL issues.
THANK YOU!
/mrg
389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
Yeah, I hear what you’re saying. 47758 is due to running bleeding edge, i get it. but i had to go there cuz I was having problems with objects getting messed up with .15 in production and even .25 in test and I went to .28 which had the SASL fix on top of .26 which fixed all object problems. The object problems were the emails I sent to the list indicating objects I couldn’t delete or modify and .28 fixed those problems. This is where i feel i was a little trapped and had to come forward to the bleeding edge. there was a method to my madness and didn’t this just willy nilly and hence where i was hoping for .29 to i might have a good mix of things - even if it was on the bleeding edge. i hope this makes sense.
/mrg
On Apr 3, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
And that problem is entirely due to running "bleeding edge" software - a new patch/feature urgently requested to be in EL6.6 that we didn't completely backport to epel6. If you were running the standard 389-ds-base in EL6.5 you would not have seen this issue. The 389-ds-base in epel6 contains patches intended for EL6.6 but which have not yet been fully tested. The only way you could get into a real bind is if you have run into an issue due to be fixed in EL6.6 that you urgently need and can't wait for it to be released through the usual EL6.6 channels.
On 04/03/2014 01:35 PM, Michael Gettes wrote:
Yeah, I hear what you’re saying. 47758 is due to running bleeding edge, i get it. but i had to go there cuz I was having problems with objects getting messed up with .15 in production and even .25 in test and I went to .28 which had the SASL fix on top of .26 which fixed all object problems. The object problems were the emails I sent to the list indicating objects I couldn’t delete or modify and .28 fixed those problems. This is where i feel i was a little trapped and had to come forward to the bleeding edge. there was a method to my madness and didn’t this just willy nilly and hence where i was hoping for .29 to i might have a good mix of things - even if it was on the bleeding edge. i hope this makes sense.
Yes, and we are working on fixing those issues in EL6.6. So perhaps when EL6.6 is released you will be able to use the OS packages.
/mrg
On Apr 3, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com> wrote:
And that problem is entirely due to running "bleeding edge" software
- a new patch/feature urgently requested to be in EL6.6 that we
didn't completely backport to epel6. If you were running the standard 389-ds-base in EL6.5 you would not have seen this issue. The 389-ds-base in epel6 contains patches intended for EL6.6 but which have not yet been fully tested. The only way you could get into a real bind is if you have run into an issue due to be fixed in EL6.6 that you urgently need and can't wait for it to be released through the usual EL6.6 channels.
-- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
ok, i understand.
thank you.
/mrg
On Apr 3, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 01:35 PM, Michael Gettes wrote:
Yeah, I hear what you’re saying. 47758 is due to running bleeding edge, i get it. but i had to go there cuz I was having problems with objects getting messed up with .15 in production and even .25 in test and I went to .28 which had the SASL fix on top of .26 which fixed all object problems. The object problems were the emails I sent to the list indicating objects I couldn’t delete or modify and .28 fixed those problems. This is where i feel i was a little trapped and had to come forward to the bleeding edge. there was a method to my madness and didn’t this just willy nilly and hence where i was hoping for .29 to i might have a good mix of things - even if it was on the bleeding edge. i hope this makes sense.
Yes, and we are working on fixing those issues in EL6.6. So perhaps when EL6.6 is released you will be able to use the OS packages.
On Apr 3, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 01:35 PM, Michael Gettes wrote:
Yeah, I hear what you’re saying. 47758 is due to running bleeding edge, i get it. but i had to go there cuz I was having problems with objects getting messed up with .15 in production and even .25 in test and I went to .28 which had the SASL fix on top of .26 which fixed all object problems. The object problems were the emails I sent to the list indicating objects I couldn’t delete or modify and .28 fixed those problems. This is where i feel i was a little trapped and had to come forward to the bleeding edge. there was a method to my madness and didn’t this just willy nilly and hence where i was hoping for .29 to i might have a good mix of things - even if it was on the bleeding edge. i hope this makes sense.
Yes, and we are working on fixing those issues in EL6.6. So perhaps when EL6.6 is released you will be able to use the OS packages.
Rich et al,
I've been following this thread with interest. I am however a little confused about the right place and version to get 389:
you make a distinction between the source version (versions 1.2.11.28 and 1.3.1.16). Both are stable, 1.3.1 is just newer and potentially more bleeding edge? 1.3.1 also seems to not be available from either the OS or epel repositories.
CentOS 6 includes centos-ds-base which is 1.2.11.15 and just includes the base directory server. Epel seems to contain all the accessory utilities (admin server, console, etc). However:
On Apr 3, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
And that problem is entirely due to running "bleeding edge" software - a new patch/feature urgently requested to be in EL6.6 that we didn't completely backport to epel6. If you were running the standard 389-ds-base in EL6.5 you would not have seen this issue. The 389-ds-base in epel6 contains patches intended for EL6.6 but which have not yet been fully tested. The only way you could get into a real bind is if you have run into an issue due to be fixed in EL6.6 that you urgently need and can't wait for it to be released through the usual EL6.6 channels.
I don't see 389-de-base in epel, just adimin server, console etc. And if epel6 contains patches that have not been fully tested and I should avoid it in production but how do I get the admin server, console etc?
On Apr 3, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Michael Gettes gettes@gmail.com wrote:
I recognize 389 is a community project and asking for timelines can be problematic. Right now, I am sorta stuck between a rock and a hard place. In production, I am on 1.2.11.15 which has problems that are fixed by 1.2.11.28. I have 1.2.11.28 in test and fixes all my prod problems but introduces a new problem which makes it rather difficult to manage the environment and it would appear this will be corrected in 1.2.11.29. So, I am a little curious as to when we might see 29. I do see on the roadmap 29 has 4 closed and 5 active but no date set.
Wouldn't this be a good time for Michael to consider 1.3.1?
thanks,
-morgan
On 04/03/2014 02:56 PM, Morgan Jones wrote:
On Apr 3, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 01:35 PM, Michael Gettes wrote:
Yeah, I hear what you’re saying. 47758 is due to running bleeding edge, i get it. but i had to go there cuz I was having problems with objects getting messed up with .15 in production and even .25 in test and I went to .28 which had the SASL fix on top of .26 which fixed all object problems. The object problems were the emails I sent to the list indicating objects I couldn’t delete or modify and .28 fixed those problems. This is where i feel i was a little trapped and had to come forward to the bleeding edge. there was a method to my madness and didn’t this just willy nilly and hence where i was hoping for .29 to i might have a good mix of things - even if it was on the bleeding edge. i hope this makes sense.
Yes, and we are working on fixing those issues in EL6.6. So perhaps when EL6.6 is released you will be able to use the OS packages.
Rich et al,
I've been following this thread with interest. I am however a little confused about the right place and version to get 389:
you make a distinction between the source version (versions 1.2.11.28 and 1.3.1.16). Both are stable, 1.3.1 is just newer and potentially more bleeding edge? 1.3.1 also seems to not be available from either the OS or epel repositories.
1.2.11 branch is strictly maintenance - only the most critical patches.
1.3.1 branch is less strict - it may get new features.
1.3.1 is available for Fecdora 19. 1.3.1 will be in EL7. We are not planning to provide it in EPEL7 at this time.
CentOS 6 includes centos-ds-base which is 1.2.11.15 and just includes the base directory server.
Not sure what the CentOS policy is on the layered additional RHDS product which includes admin server, console, et. al.
Epel seems to contain all the accessory utilities (admin server, console, etc). However:
The official EPEL6 repositories, yes.
On Apr 3, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
And that problem is entirely due to running "bleeding edge" software - a new patch/feature urgently requested to be in EL6.6 that we didn't completely backport to epel6. If you were running the standard 389-ds-base in EL6.5 you would not have seen this issue. The 389-ds-base in epel6 contains patches intended for EL6.6 but which have not yet been fully tested. The only way you could get into a real bind is if you have run into an issue due to be fixed in EL6.6 that you urgently need and can't wait for it to be released through the usual EL6.6 channels.
I don't see 389-de-base in epel, just adimin server, console etc.
Right.
And if epel6 contains patches that have not been fully tested and I should avoid it in production but how do I get the admin server, console etc?
There is a distinction between "epel6" and the official EPEL6. What we call "389-ds-base" in "epel6" is not really the official EPEL6 repository. It is an individual developer provided and supported fedorapeople (and now copr) repository strictly for those who want to (or must) be on the "bleeding" edge of the 1.2.11 branch - those who absolutely require bug fixes or features that are present in the upstream 1.2.11 branch, but are not yet in the official EL6.5 389-ds-base package.
On Apr 3, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Michael Gettes gettes@gmail.com wrote:
I recognize 389 is a community project and asking for timelines can be problematic. Right now, I am sorta stuck between a rock and a hard place. In production, I am on 1.2.11.15 which has problems that are fixed by 1.2.11.28. I have 1.2.11.28 in test and fixes all my prod problems but introduces a new problem which makes it rather difficult to manage the environment and it would appear this will be corrected in 1.2.11.29. So, I am a little curious as to when we might see 29. I do see on the roadmap 29 has 4 closed and 5 active but no date set.
Wouldn't this be a good time for Michael to consider 1.3.1?
Sure, but we are not considering providing 1.3.1 rpms for EL6 at this time. That means building/packaging/repository/updating manually.
thanks,
-morgan
389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 02:56 PM, Morgan Jones wrote:
On Apr 3, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 01:35 PM, Michael Gettes wrote:
Yeah, I hear what you’re saying. 47758 is due to running bleeding edge, i get it. but i had to go there cuz I was having problems with objects getting messed up with .15 in production and even .25 in test and I went to .28 which had the SASL fix on top of .26 which fixed all object problems. The object problems were the emails I sent to the list indicating objects I couldn’t delete or modify and .28 fixed those problems. This is where i feel i was a little trapped and had to come forward to the bleeding edge. there was a method to my madness and didn’t this just willy nilly and hence where i was hoping for .29 to i might have a good mix of things - even if it was on the bleeding edge. i hope this makes sense.
Yes, and we are working on fixing those issues in EL6.6. So perhaps when EL6.6 is released you will be able to use the OS packages.
Rich et al,
I've been following this thread with interest. I am however a little confused about the right place and version to get 389:
you make a distinction between the source version (versions 1.2.11.28 and 1.3.1.16). Both are stable, 1.3.1 is just newer and potentially more bleeding edge? 1.3.1 also seems to not be available from either the OS or epel repositories.
1.2.11 branch is strictly maintenance - only the most critical patches.
1.3.1 branch is less strict - it may get new features.
1.3.1 is available for Fecdora 19. 1.3.1 will be in EL7. We are not planning to provide it in EPEL7 at this time.
Thanks, that makes sense.
And if epel6 contains patches that have not been fully tested and I should avoid it in production but how do I get the admin server, console etc?
There is a distinction between "epel6" and the official EPEL6. What we call "389-ds-base" in "epel6" is not really the official EPEL6 repository. It is an individual developer provided and supported fedorapeople (and now copr) repository strictly for those who want to (or must) be on the "bleeding" edge of the 1.2.11 branch - those who absolutely require bug fixes or features that are present in the upstream 1.2.11 branch, but are not yet in the official EL6.5 389-ds-base package.
I understand. I didn't catch the distinction between "EPEL6" and "epel6."
Where is the (lowercase) epel6/copr repository? I know I've seen the fedora people repository in the past but I can't for the life of me find it (or copr) now. I see various pages but not the repository itself.
thanks for the clarifications,
-morgan
On Apr 3, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Michael Gettes gettes@gmail.com wrote:
I recognize 389 is a community project and asking for timelines can be problematic. Right now, I am sorta stuck between a rock and a hard place. In production, I am on 1.2.11.15 which has problems that are fixed by 1.2.11.28. I have 1.2.11.28 in test and fixes all my prod problems but introduces a new problem which makes it rather difficult to manage the environment and it would appear this will be corrected in 1.2.11.29. So, I am a little curious as to when we might see 29. I do see on the roadmap 29 has 4 closed and 5 active but no date set.
Wouldn't this be a good time for Michael to consider 1.3.1?
Sure, but we are not considering providing 1.3.1 rpms for EL6 at this time. That means building/packaging/repository/updating manually.
thanks,
-morgan
389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
-- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
On 04/04/2014 01:04 PM, Morgan Jones wrote:
On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 02:56 PM, Morgan Jones wrote:
On Apr 3, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 01:35 PM, Michael Gettes wrote:
Yeah, I hear what you’re saying. 47758 is due to running bleeding edge, i get it. but i had to go there cuz I was having problems with objects getting messed up with .15 in production and even .25 in test and I went to .28 which had the SASL fix on top of .26 which fixed all object problems. The object problems were the emails I sent to the list indicating objects I couldn’t delete or modify and .28 fixed those problems. This is where i feel i was a little trapped and had to come forward to the bleeding edge. there was a method to my madness and didn’t this just willy nilly and hence where i was hoping for .29 to i might have a good mix of things - even if it was on the bleeding edge. i hope this makes sense.
Yes, and we are working on fixing those issues in EL6.6. So perhaps when EL6.6 is released you will be able to use the OS packages.
Rich et al,
I've been following this thread with interest. I am however a little confused about the right place and version to get 389:
you make a distinction between the source version (versions 1.2.11.28 and 1.3.1.16). Both are stable, 1.3.1 is just newer and potentially more bleeding edge? 1.3.1 also seems to not be available from either the OS or epel repositories.
1.2.11 branch is strictly maintenance - only the most critical patches.
1.3.1 branch is less strict - it may get new features.
1.3.1 is available for Fecdora 19. 1.3.1 will be in EL7. We are not planning to provide it in EPEL7 at this time.
Thanks, that makes sense.
And if epel6 contains patches that have not been fully tested and I should avoid it in production but how do I get the admin server, console etc?
There is a distinction between "epel6" and the official EPEL6. What we call "389-ds-base" in "epel6" is not really the official EPEL6 repository. It is an individual developer provided and supported fedorapeople (and now copr) repository strictly for those who want to (or must) be on the "bleeding" edge of the 1.2.11 branch - those who absolutely require bug fixes or features that are present in the upstream 1.2.11 branch, but are not yet in the official EL6.5 389-ds-base package.
I understand. I didn't catch the distinction between "EPEL6" and "epel6."
Where is the (lowercase) epel6/copr repository? I know I've seen the fedora people repository in the past but I can't for the life of me find it (or copr) now. I see various pages but not the repository itself.
http://port389.org/wiki/Download
thanks for the clarifications,
-morgan
On Apr 3, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Michael Gettes gettes@gmail.com wrote:
I recognize 389 is a community project and asking for timelines can be problematic. Right now, I am sorta stuck between a rock and a hard place. In production, I am on 1.2.11.15 which has problems that are fixed by 1.2.11.28. I have 1.2.11.28 in test and fixes all my prod problems but introduces a new problem which makes it rather difficult to manage the environment and it would appear this will be corrected in 1.2.11.29. So, I am a little curious as to when we might see 29. I do see on the roadmap 29 has 4 closed and 5 active but no date set.
Wouldn't this be a good time for Michael to consider 1.3.1?
Sure, but we are not considering providing 1.3.1 rpms for EL6 at this time. That means building/packaging/repository/updating manually.
thanks,
-morgan
389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
-- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
-- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
On Apr 4, 2014, at 3:20 PM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2014 01:04 PM, Morgan Jones wrote:
On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 02:56 PM, Morgan Jones wrote:
On Apr 3, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 01:35 PM, Michael Gettes wrote:
Yeah, I hear what you’re saying. 47758 is due to running bleeding edge, i get it. but i had to go there cuz I was having problems with objects getting messed up with .15 in production and even .25 in test and I went to .28 which had the SASL fix on top of .26 which fixed all object problems. The object problems were the emails I sent to the list indicating objects I couldn’t delete or modify and .28 fixed those problems. This is where i feel i was a little trapped and had to come forward to the bleeding edge. there was a method to my madness and didn’t this just willy nilly and hence where i was hoping for .29 to i might have a good mix of things - even if it was on the bleeding edge. i hope this makes sense.
Yes, and we are working on fixing those issues in EL6.6. So perhaps when EL6.6 is released you will be able to use the OS packages.
Rich et al,
I've been following this thread with interest. I am however a little confused about the right place and version to get 389:
you make a distinction between the source version (versions 1.2.11.28 and 1.3.1.16). Both are stable, 1.3.1 is just newer and potentially more bleeding edge? 1.3.1 also seems to not be available from either the OS or epel repositories.
1.2.11 branch is strictly maintenance - only the most critical patches.
1.3.1 branch is less strict - it may get new features.
1.3.1 is available for Fecdora 19. 1.3.1 will be in EL7. We are not planning to provide it in EPEL7 at this time.
Thanks, that makes sense.
And if epel6 contains patches that have not been fully tested and I should avoid it in production but how do I get the admin server, console etc?
There is a distinction between "epel6" and the official EPEL6. What we call "389-ds-base" in "epel6" is not really the official EPEL6 repository. It is an individual developer provided and supported fedorapeople (and now copr) repository strictly for those who want to (or must) be on the "bleeding" edge of the 1.2.11 branch - those who absolutely require bug fixes or features that are present in the upstream 1.2.11 branch, but are not yet in the official EL6.5 389-ds-base package.
I understand. I didn't catch the distinction between "EPEL6" and "epel6."
Where is the (lowercase) epel6/copr repository? I know I've seen the fedora people repository in the past but I can't for the life of me find it (or copr) now. I see various pages but not the repository itself.
Oh. I looked right over it. Thanks.
-morgan
On Apr 3, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "what's available in the repo" vs. "what's available by source”.
ya know, i am not really sure either. but you’re response reinforces in my mind that something weird is going on here and i have to have a chat with my sysadmins as to why i am not seeing what i should be seeing in the EPEL repos - we have firewall stuff means I am not in full control of how i get stuff. OR, i just go with source for 29 when it comes out and wait for the OS dist to catch up. That might be the path of least resistance, but i think i still need to resolve my EPEL issues with my sysadmins.
What is it exactly that you are not seeing in the EPEL repos that you are expecting to see?
I never answered this question - I just heard back from my sysadmins and they have determined there was a problem with our outbound proxy config which prevented us from seeing the fedora people updates - so now i don’t need to build from source any more as i can see 1.2.11.29 - as i said, it was a local problem.
and, FYI - i have already deployed .29 to our test environment and it appears to have corrected all of our existing problems except for what is documented by 47730 - but i can live with turning off SSL in console until nss is fixed.
again, thank you so much to all the 389 devs. i continue to recommend 389 as the directory server to use above all others because of its lineage, its performance and its support and community.
/mrg
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Michael Gettes -
Morgan Jones -
Rich Megginson