Re: [Debian-sf-devel] ldap-sourceforge conflict & i18n?

[Christian BAYLE]

Soon-Son Kwon wrote:
> 
> Hello debian-sf developers:
> Recently I have been trying to configure debian-sf(2.5.x & 2.6.x both)
> to my machine(woody & sid both) but failed.
> 
> Christian said that this was due to change in slapd package.
> I am not sure I understood correctly, the admin account in
> the current slapd package changed but debian-sf assumes the
> old way.
> (cn=admin,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com / cn=admin,dc=example,dc=com)
> Am I correct? This may be a stupid question of ldap newbie but I
> just want to root cause & summarize the problem because a few
> more people are having the same problem.

In fact we need some write access to ldap directory in debian-sf
We try to setup this correctly in /etc/ldap/slapd.conf

That make that everything was ok until you don't reinstall ldap
The new place for admin is for me more logical, so in the last 
upload we made necessary change in debian-sf to use the new place.

This can cause a conflict if you upgrade from an ancient version
/usr/lib/sourceforge/bin/install-ldap.sh reset 
followed by install-ldap.sh configure should solve this.


> If this is true, is there any plan to change the debian-sf package
> to cope with the new slapd package or should the slapd be changed?
> 
We try to follow all debian changes, but it takes sometime some time.

> And I personally want to devote my time to i18n-ing debian-sf
> because current debian-sf(including the original sourceforge) is not
> a complete multilingual software. In order to make debian-sf a truly
> i18n-ed program, we should extract all the messages and incorporate
> them into the base language file as phpnuke does. (http://www.phpnuke.org)
> The actual architecture may be different but dividing the message
> from the code is the starting point for i18n-ing.
> 
> But before doing so, I want to decide which one to focus between
> 2.5.x and 2.6.x.
> 
2.5 is destinated to woody, and won't integrate more changes,
it has to be a stable version

2.6 will be the next version, were we will try to integrate new
fonctionnality
This is the version you should work on.

> Could anyone please let me know what is the main difference
> between these two and which version will you developers focus
> on for future? I want to focus on that version too.
> 
> And is there any public website which runs debian-sf?
> I want to see it in action. :-)
> 
I have got one, but it's destinated to some european project, but for
private use,
and so, you can't create projects on it.
Roland and I are using this for internal use.

But, if someone could setup a public experimental site, 
this would be nice, for testing.


> Thanks very much....
> --
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>            (o_             **WTFM**
> (o_  (o_   //\
> (/)_ (/)_  V_/_        http://kldp.org
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Debian-sf-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.freesoftware.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-sf-devel

-- 
Christian Bayle 
===============================================================================
E-mail: address@hidden