389-ds-base

#49489 is upgrade dn format still needed ?
Closed: wontfix by spichugi. Opened by lkrispen.

Closed: wontfix
Reopen Issue

Once there was a bug in ds where:

 cn=a b,dc=example
 cn=a           b,dc=example

were normalized differently and would be two different entries. After fixing this and becoming rfc compliant to be backwards compatible an "upgradednformat" was introduced to rename one of these and create a conflict.

I think we no longer need this.

Metadata Update from @mreynolds:
- Custom field component adjusted to None
- Custom field origin adjusted to None
- Custom field reviewstatus adjusted to None
- Custom field type adjusted to None
- Custom field version adjusted to None
- Issue set to the milestone: 1.4 backlog

389-ds-base is moving from Pagure to Github. This means that new issues and pull requests
will be accepted only in 389-ds-base's github repository.

This issue has been cloned to Github and is available here:
- https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/issues/2548

If you want to receive further updates on the issue, please navigate to the github issue
and click on subscribe button.

Thank you for understanding. We apologize for all inconvenience.

Metadata Update from @spichugi:
- Issue close_status updated to: wontfix
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Metadata
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Static archive. pagure.io was sunset in 2026; this is a read-only snapshot.
Red Hat Logo

Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat. Learn more about the relationship between Red Hat and Fedora »

© Red Hat, Inc. and others.