Please try to upgrade an alpha10 when enforcing new rules in samdb

[Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer]

Sorry, sorry, ekacnet,

I have overseen the thread. I relaxed the delete checks but didn't relax 
the rename checks since I thought that wouldn't be necessary. I will 
push a patch which relaxes them too. Hope this is enough!

Matthias

Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 10:30 +0400, Matthieu Patou wrote:
>    
>> On 15/08/2010 05:00, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>      
>>> On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 00:04 +0400, Matthieu Patou wrote:
>>>        
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Is this kind of patch ok for you ?
>>>>
>>>> Should I wait until MDW fix the two pb that I noted or should I push it
>>>> now ?
>>>>          
>>> We can't add tests that fail, so you will need to work with mdw to sort
>>> out the issues (or at least mark it as knownfail for now).  In any case,
>>> I don't see any patch attached, so I can't really comment.
>>>
>>>        
>> Sorry I forget to paste this URL:
>> http://gitweb.samba.org/?p=mat/samba.git;a=commit;h=b201a6c2fdbfd05440f55d090ec96cc1a5c1fb7f
>>      
> This looks fine.
>
> We should make it 'pass' if the old provision tarball is not present, so
> we can exclude it from the tarballs we distribute.  Also perhaps we
> should bzip2 it?
>
> Andrew Bartlett
>
>