= description = Some concepts in ยง7.4.4 Schema Replication are not clear. Quoted text is taken from the guide.
= quote 1 =
In all replication scenarios...[cut] The following conditions apply: If the version of the schema ...[master has newer]...the supplier server replicates to the consumer That's not true for all replication scenarios. Only when replicating changes made: - via ldapmodify - via admin console - via 99user.ldif That's false when changes are made: - via custom files eg. 60example.ldif See notes at the end of chapter.
= quote 2=
If the version of the schema...[slave has newer]...the server may return many errors... I would state clearly that replication happens even if schemas mismatch.
= quote 3 =
Changes made to custom schema files are only replicated if the schema is updated using LDAP or the Directory Server Console To me that's not clear: afaik changes made to custom schema files are NEVER replicated. You have to copy ldifs to the slave schema/ directory.
Maybe if you extend entries contained in custom schema files, extended entries are saved into 99user.ldif and then replicated to slaves' 99user.ldif.
Let me know if/how I can help.
I opened a documentation bug against Red Hat Directory Server for this issue. Red Hat documentation issues are not addressed through the 389 Directory Server trac instance. I will close this ticket. The documentation bug is located at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811005
Added initial screened field value.
Metadata Update from @nkinder: - Issue assigned to rmeggins - Issue set to the milestone: N/A
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/334
If you want to receive further updates on the issue, please navigate to the github issue and click on subscribe button.
subscribe
Thank you for understanding. We apologize for all inconvenience.
Metadata Update from @spichugi: - Issue close_status updated to: wontfix (was: Invalid)
Login to comment on this ticket.