extended provision-backend

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 01:48 +0200, Oliver Liebel wrote:
> 
> Andrew Bartlett schrieb:
> > On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 01:09 +0200, Oliver Liebel wrote:
> >   
> >> Andrew Bartlett schrieb:
> >>     
> >>> On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 13:58 +0200, Oliver Liebel wrote:
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>>> Andrew Bartlett schrieb:
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>>       
> >>>>> Thank-you so much for this work.  I've been thinking about it, and the
> >>>>> main thing I dislike is the way you try to detect another slapd process
> >>>>> using ps and grep.  Instead, how about trying a rootDSE search against
> >>>>> the ldapi socket?  
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> what about a simple bind via python-ldap to the socket?
> >>>> that should do it too.
> >>>> tested ist, seems ok.
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>> That would work.  However I would prefer to use the ldb bindings if
> >>> possible.  See the Ldb module. 
> >>>
> >>> (not that I think using python-ldap would be a big extra burden in terms
> >>> of dependences, but because it means a future maintainer of the script
> >>> would not have to learn another module and pattern). 
> >>>
> >>> Andrew Bartlett
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> hi andrew,
> >> here is the second (and hopefully...) final edition.
> >>     
> >
> > Good, but don't go around killing processes until you have confirmed
> > that it's actually listening on the port.  (The pid file could be left
> > around, and another process could have that pid)
> >   
> > I would really prefer not to do the kill at all - perhaps just print out
> > what PID we think is still listening there.  That is: do the ldap search
> > test first.
> >   
> that should be fixed quick.
> first ldapsearch, then check if slapd-"provision"-pid == slapd.pid, then 
> kill. ok.

I'm not sure how you intend to check the PID, but as I said, I would
prefer not to kill in the script, just print the PID. 

> > Also, if you could try and use the Ldb module, 
> thats matter of time. next weeks i have very limited time.
> what about that: ill fix the "kill"-order, and we put the improvements
> (with python-ldap) into the next alpha, so that we can get more 
> testing-feedback.
> functionality should be ok, i have verified it several times with all 
> setup-types.
> 
> we could handle the change from python-ldap to ldb transparently to the 
> users
> in the next evolution step, when both scripts are merged.

I'll handle both the Ldb change and integration if you don't have time. 

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20090807/a1d12f17/attachment.pgp>