basedn vs dn=%s searches

[tridge at samba.org]

Andrew,

 > It's also an odd search, isn't the new pattern to do these as BASE
 > searches on the exact DN?

I changed a lot of those back in our SAM code to being dn=%s searches
as compilers were complaining about the NULL format strings to printf
attribute functions.

hmm, checking against the w2k3 LDAP server, it looks like it doesn't
accept 'dn=XXX' searches at all. I hadn't realised that. So it looks
like we should change to using the basedn method as Simo suggested a
while back. Now we just need to find a way of doing that while keeping
the format string checking.

gcc 3.4 seems happy with a NULL format string. Maybe it was a gcc 4
warning that I saw? Nope, gcc-4.0 seems happy with a NULL format as
well. Maybe I was imagining things? :-)

I'll change them back to basedn searches and we'll see what effect it
has in the build farm.

Cheers, Tridge