Bug 571514 - upgrade to 1.2.6 should upgrade 05rfc4523.ldif (cert schema)
Summary: upgrade to 1.2.6 should upgrade 05rfc4523.ldif (cert schema)
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: 389
Classification: Retired
Component: Schema
Version: 1.2.6
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Rich Megginson
QA Contact: Viktor Ashirov
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 389_1.2.6 639035
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-03-08 17:43 UTC by Rich Megginson
Modified: 2015-12-07 16:48 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-12-07 16:48:43 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
patch (1.47 KB, patch)
2010-03-08 19:46 UTC, Rich Megginson
nhosoi: review+
Details | Diff

Description Rich Megginson 2010-03-08 17:43:02 UTC
matching rule support was added, so schema elements must have the correct matching rule.  But we don't yet support the cert matching rules such as certificateExactMatch, etc.  So we're just using octetStringMatch and related rules for the cert matching rules for now.

Comment 1 Rich Megginson 2010-03-08 19:46:47 UTC
Created attachment 398603 [details]
patch

Comment 2 Rich Megginson 2010-03-08 21:42:51 UTC
To ssh://git.fedorahosted.org/git/389/ds.git
   7c3866d..4845ffc  master -> master

commit 4845ffc48517bd2c938129a40c4e4f29c1efcc5a
Author: Rich Megginson <rmeggins>
Date:   Mon Mar 8 12:36:56 2010 -0700
    Reviewed by: nhosoi (Thanks!)
    Branch: HEAD
    Fix Description: Added 05rfc4523.ldif to the list of schema to upgrade.
    Platforms tested: RHEL5 x86_64
    Flag Day: no
    Doc impact: no

Comment 3 Rob Crittenden 2010-04-20 21:15:39 UTC
I upgraded to 389-ds-base-1.2.6-0.3.a3.fc12.x86_64 from I think 389-ds-base-1.2.5-1.fc12.x86_64.

I get this when starting the server:

Shutting down dirsrv: 
    GREYOAK-COM...                                         [  OK  ]
Starting dirsrv: 
    GREYOAK-COM...[20/Apr/2010:16:42:12 -0400] attr_syntax_create - Error: the EQUALITY matching rule [certificateExactMatch] is not compatible with the syntax [1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.5] for the attribute [userCertificate]
[20/Apr/2010:16:42:12 -0400] attr_syntax_create - Error: the EQUALITY matching rule [certificateExactMatch] is not compatible with the syntax [1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.5] for the attribute [cACertificate]
[20/Apr/2010:16:42:12 -0400] attr_syntax_create - Error: the EQUALITY matching rule [certificatePairExactMatch] is not compatible with the syntax [1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.5] for the attribute [crossCertificatePair]
[20/Apr/2010:16:42:12 -0400] attr_syntax_create - Error: the EQUALITY matching rule [certificateListExactMatch] is not compatible with the syntax [1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.5] for the attribute [certificateRevocationList]
[20/Apr/2010:16:42:12 -0400] attr_syntax_create - Error: the EQUALITY matching rule [certificateListExactMatch] is not compatible with the syntax [1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.5] for the attribute [authorityRevocationList]
[20/Apr/2010:16:42:12 -0400] attr_syntax_create - Error: the EQUALITY matching rule [certificateListExactMatch] is not compatible with the syntax [1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.5] for the attribute [deltaRevocationList]
                                                           [  OK  ]

I checked one attribute, cACertificate, and I have it defined in two files:

# grep -i  cACertificate *
05rfc4523.ldif:#attributeTypes: ( 2.5.4.37 NAME 'cACertificate'
05rfc4523.ldif:attributeTypes: ( 2.5.4.37 NAME 'cACertificate'
05rfc4523.ldif:  MAY ( cACertificate $ certificateRevocationList $
05rfc4523.ldif:       certificateRevocationList $ cACertificate )
60basev2.ldif:attributeTypes: (2.5.4.37 NAME 'cACertificate' DESC 'X.509 CA certificate' EQUALITY certificateExactMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.5 X-ORIGIN 'RFC 4523' )
60basev2.ldif:objectClasses: (2.5.6.22 NAME 'pkiCA' DESC 'X.509 PKI Certificate Authority' SUP top AUXILIARY MAY ( cACertificate $ certificateRevocationList $ authorityRevocationList $ crossCertificatePair )

Comment 4 Rob Crittenden 2010-04-20 21:20:08 UTC
Looks like the complaint is from the entry in 60basev2.ldif

Comment 5 Rich Megginson 2010-04-20 21:37:29 UTC
ipa will update its schema to remove the duplicated schema elements from 60basev2.ldif

Comment 8 Amita Sharma 2011-09-29 12:31:09 UTC
Verified by following comment#7.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.