extended provision-backend

Oliver Liebel oliver at itc.li
Fri Aug 7 02:20:40 MDT 2009

Andrew Bartlett schrieb:
> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 10:16 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 01:48 +0200, Oliver Liebel wrote:
>>>> 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. 
> I've now read the patch more carefully.  This seems like a great
> approach!
thanks. please tell me how you want to handle it:
just check the pid an print out, so the admin has to kill it self?
(e.g. "provision finished. slapd-provison-process with pid 12345 must
be terminated now. you should verify, that this is the correct pid
before you kill it.")
this would leave the responsibility to the admin.
>>>> 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. 
i would like to handle the ldb change, if its okay for you.
please just give a short hint where i can find some stuff about the
ldb-related ldapsearch syntax / procedure ( ../source4/libs/ldb.. ?)
 or a quick syntax example. ill do the rest.

next point is the complete merge.
if we want to get all stuff into next alpha right on time,
i think it would be the best if you handle the merge,
because my time will be very limited the next weeks/months.

thats also the point why i cant get deep enough into git.
hope thats no problem.

>> Andrew Bartlett

More information about the samba-technical mailing list