[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Recent lwat changes



El sáb, 25-04-2009 a las 22:38 +0200, John S. Skogtvedt escribió:
> Holger Levsen skrev:
> > Is there anon svn checkout available? If not, could you make it available, 
> > please? Alternativly and not really a solution IMO, would be to give me 
> > normal svn access... I'd like to upload lwat to our lenny-test so we can use 
> > your changes..
> > 
> 
> This should work:
> $ svn co http://lwat.org/svn/trunk lwat
> 
> 
> >> I've attached a diff with proposed changes to to dhcp.ldif in
> >> debian-edu-config/ldap-bootstrap, which is intended to make debian-edu
> >> work better with the lwat DHCP changes.
> > 
> > has this been included in out schema now?
> > 
> 
> From a quick look at ldap-bootstrap/dhcp.ldif, the answer seems to be no.

I've been testing lwat 0.18~beta-2 and almost everything seems to go
perfectly in the servers we have in production since last december. 
The 'almost" is due to a strange behaviour when adding machines to the
dns domain. The structure we have is the same you can see at 
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Lwat?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=dns-ldap.png
In this case the domain is 'santaeulalia'. 
You can see that the hosts are added under the domain name branch. But
with lwat, it adds them under the ou=hosts branch.
This is the diference:
cn=test-pro,ou=Hosts,dc=instituto,dc=extremadura,dc=es
cn=test-pro,dc=domain,ou=Hosts,dc=instituto,dc=extremadura,dc=es

 For the reverse addresses it handles it perfectly, adding them under
the dc=in.addr,dc=...

I don't understand why the machines are added under ou=hosts. In terms
of clarity when you have many machines, I think this is not the right
behaviour. I'd like to know if this is a bug or a design decision. In
the later case I'd like to know the advantages of using that structure
instead of the proposed at http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Lwat .

Regards.
José L.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente


Reply to: