Hello,

I'm using LDAP Admin for administering our user database and found out something strange, if I add user to group via group properties, the permisions of that group aren't effective, but if I add group to that user (via user properties), those permisions are effective. Any ideas why? Looks like Samba and eGroupware are checking only users and not groups.

Bye, alan

Thanks for the answer, found out that if I add user to group via group properties, LDAPAdmin put it in under attribute member, and if I add user to group via user properties, it add user under attribute memberUid. Is it possible somehow to say that member is equal to memberUid or how to persuade LDAPAdmin to put users directly under memberUid attribute?

Bye, Alan

solarflow99 pravi:

I use ldapadmin too, and reported a few bugs but I didn't notice this one. I see that once you add a user to a group, all it does is add a MemberUid attribute to the group, so I don't think it should matter either way. I just tested this with samba, and it seems to work for me, however i'm just using workgroups, not PDC ot ADS. The only thing I can think of is the ldap group directive in smb.conf.

ldap group suffix = ou=Groups

On 4/2/08, *Alan Orlič Belšak* <alan.orlic@zd-lj.si mailto:alan.orlic@zd-lj.si> wrote:

Hello,

I'm using LDAP Admin for administering our  user database and
found out something strange, if I add user to group via group
properties, the permisions of that group aren't effective, but if
I add group to that user (via user properties), those permisions
are effective. Any ideas why? Looks like Samba and eGroupware are
checking only users and not groups.

Bye, alan

--
Fedora-directory-users mailing list
Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com
<mailto:Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users

---

-- Fedora-directory-users mailing list Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users

The packaging of Fedora DS 1.1 has a pretty significant change after Fedora DS 1.0.4 and also we haven't run into any stability problem with Fedora DS 1.0.2 so to minimize risk it would be better to stay at the Fedora DS 1.0.2.

Do you think I'll run into any problem running Fedora DS 1.0.2 build against Fedora Core 5 on RHEL 5.1?

Thanks!

David

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 7:29 PM, solarflow99 solarflow99@gmail.com wrote:

is there a reason why you can't use 1.1? I have it installed on rhel 5.1and it works well.

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Chun Tat David Chu < beyonddc.storage@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi All,

I would like to install Fedora DS 1.0.2 LDAP (64 bits) on RHEL 5.1 (64 bits) using the binary package (fedora-ds-1.0.2-1.FC5.x86_64.opt.rpm) built against the FC5 that can be downloaded from the Fedora DS website ( http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Download).

I installed it, launched the console and ran couple of my Java LDAP tests that use Java Native Directory Interface (JNDI), and it seems to be working happily.

When I look at it, it seems like it is compatible.

I would like to know if I miss anything obvious that the Fedora DS 1.0.2binary package that built against FC5 will not be compatible with RHEL 5.1?

Thanks!!

• David

-- Fedora-directory-users mailing list Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users

-- Fedora-directory-users mailing list Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users