--On Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:15 AM -0400 Clint Adams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The bug listed here incorrectly links to my site. It should have linked
to the official BDB site, as this bug is from the BDB folks themselves.
<http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/berkeley-db/db/update/4.2.52/
patch.4.2.52.html>
In particular, this is patch #5. It is *required* for the later
OpenLDAP 2.2 and all of OpenLDAP 2.3 to work right. The severity here
needs to raised to grave, as the OpenLDAP distributed with etch cannot
function correctly without this patch.
Just to clarify here for all fascinated readers:
This bug is, or was originally, about the patch at
http://www.openldap.org/devel/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/build/Attic/BerkeleyD
B42.patch?rev=1.5.4.1&hideattic=1&sortbydate=0
According to OpenLDAP CVS commit logs and this Faq-O-Matic entry,
http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/44.html
this unofficial BDB patch is obsoleted by OpenLDAP 2.3.
The vendor patch to which Quanah refers was the subject of a brief
mailing list thread beginning here
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-db-devel/2007-February/00115
7.html and continuing here
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-db-devel/2007-March/001161.h
tml
but no bug report was generated as a result of that thread as far as I
am aware.
In the interest of making me less confused, I am presently going to make
a new bug that is explicitly about vendor patch #5.
Thanks!
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Developer
ITS/Shared Application Services
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
