Bug 4891 - Better compatibility with other LDAP products
Better compatibility with other LDAP products
Product: Samba 4.0
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Other
All All
: P3 normal
: ---
Assigned To: Andrew Bartlett
Andrew Bartlett
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-08-17 10:40 UTC by Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer
Modified: 2009-04-13 08:00 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer 2007-08-17 10:40:47 UTC
Lastly I tested three LDAP editors and both have some problems with the SAMBA 4 LDAP backend. For comparison I made the tests also again Fedora Directory Server, where the things worked.
In the first program "LDAP Admin" I noticed a crash when I wanted to edit an entry. In the second "LUMA" there was displayed a message telling something about invalid entries in some cases when I was going to try to change something. The third app "JXplorer" wasn't even able to show me the tree.
I believe that all is caused by schema and schema checking problems.
Comment 1 Andrew Bartlett 2007-09-03 00:33:56 UTC
OK, it looks like this will be a bit of a challenge.  

We need to fix up Samba4's use of things like 'unixName', and see why these tools fail.  I've installed gq and luma, so can check this more in future. 
Comment 2 Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer 2007-09-25 03:07:47 UTC
Andrew, any results on your test?
Comment 3 Andrew Bartlett 2007-11-04 19:43:56 UTC
phpldapadmin seems to work fine (but is clearly not a tool targeted at AD)

gq crashes (but then again, this is far from unusual...)

luma complains 'could not parse template file' (but I can't even get it to bind against real AD)

The comparison needs to be against AD, as the way schema is deployed in both directories differs, and these tools do a lot of schema introspection. 
Comment 4 Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer 2008-01-22 16:19:06 UTC
Now I retested SAMBA 4 with LdapAdmin and discovered, that the critical point seems to be a certain look up to "cn=Aggregate,cn=Schema,cn=Configuration,<domain>".

Have we there everything right in comparison with Windows Server?
Comment 5 Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer 2008-06-02 14:56:07 UTC
*** Bug 5496 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 6 Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer 2008-12-29 12:08:16 UTC
I've to say that here we've improved greatly.
- With LDAP Admin the editing still isn't possible but that could be due the Active Directory schema
- LUMA seems much more stable against SAMBA 4
- JXplorer is able to see the tree and the navigation works

Maybe it is worth to close now the bug, since we can't be completely RFC-LDAP compatible because of Active Directory.
Comment 7 Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer 2009-04-13 08:00:40 UTC
Now the various clients seem to work due to the new Microsoft AD schema. Thanks to everyone who has helped to achieve this!