I wrote a windows based GUI tool to do this a few years ago. If you are
interested please ping me offline.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Ralf Mattes <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Am Montag, 06. Februar 2017 08:34 CET, "Ulrich Windl" <
> [email protected]> schrieb:
>
> >
> > Why not? That's the "dirty" part of the quick response: People may be
> started
> > quickly, but have to fix the dirty details if they are affected.
>
> I strongly disagree (note: this is not a comment on the script posted but a
> general remark). Your standpoit assumes that the person asking for a
> solution is
> able to judge the quality/completeness/bugs /corner cases of the solution
> provided
> before running the script. But a person with such knowlege would never
> need to ask
> for such a solution. And "if they are affected" might translate into "once
> they've lost
> valuable data".
>
>
> > BTW: If ldapsearch had the same option that slapcat has, namely
> > "ldif-wrap={no|<n>}", the simple script could work.
>
> It does have such an option.
>
>  Cheers, Ralf Mattes
>
> > Ulrich
> >
> > >
> > > thanks again, regards,
> > > Jephté
> > >
> > > 2017-02-02 1:45 GMT+04:00 Dieter Klünter <[email protected]>:
> > >
> > >> Am Wed, 1 Feb 2017 22:21:31 +0400
> > >> schrieb Jephte Clain <[email protected]>:
> > >>
> > >> > hello,
> > >> >
> > >> > he asked for a quick and dirty way with bash, so that's what I gave
> > >> > him. however, I'm curious: can you give me an example of input my
> > >> > script can't handle?
> > >> Just an example:
> > >>
> > >> dn:: Y249TWFudWVsIE3DvGhsYmVjayxvdT1hZHJlc3NidWNoLG89YXZjaSxjPWRl
> > >> cn:: TWFudWVsIE3DvGhsYmVjaw==
> > >>
> > >> -Dieter
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Dieter Klünter | Systemberatung
> > >> http://sys4.de
> > >> GPG Key ID: E9ED159B
> > >> 53°37'09,95"N
> > >> 10°08'02,42"E
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jephté CLAIN | Développeur, Intégrateur d'applications
> > > Service Système d'Information
> > > Direction des Systèmes d'Information
> > > Tél: +262 262 93 86 31 || Gsm: +262 692 29 58 24
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to