s4: Patch for fixing LDB integer save operations on big-endian platforms

[Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer]

Okay Simo,

I revert the changes in "dbspeed.c" and "winsdb.c".

Regarding "samldb.c" do you mean the following patch snippet?
> @@ -293,12 +293,13 @@ found:
>
>                 return ldb_operr(ldb);
>
>         }
>
>
>
> -       ret = ldb_msg_add_fmt(ac->msg, "msDS-SecondaryKrbTgtNumber", 
> "%u", krbtgt_number);
>
> +       ret = samdb_msg_add_uint(ldb, ac->msg, ac->msg,
>
> +                                "msDS-SecondaryKrbTgtNumber", 
> krbtgt_number);
>
>         if (ret != LDB_SUCCESS) {
>
>                 return ldb_operr(ldb);
>
>         }
>
>
>
> -       ret = ldb_msg_add_fmt(ac->msg, "sAMAccountName", "krbtgt_%u", 
> krbtgt_number);
>
> +       ret = ldb_msg_add_fmt(ac->msg, "sAMAccountName", "krbtgt_%d", 
> krbtgt_number);
>
>         if (ret != LDB_SUCCESS) {
>
>                 return ldb_operr(ldb);
>
>         }
If yes, then I revert this too. The other part of the samldb patch 
should be okay.

Greets,
Matthias


simo wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 19:31 +0200, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
>    
>> Simo,
>>
>> sorry if I'm asking - which change in particular you don't like? Do you
>> mean these from "dbspeed.c"?
>>      
> Yes.
>
> But the ones in winsdb.c are highly suspicious too, as well as those in
> samldb.c
>
> Simo.
>
>