TLS context

[Joe Little]

on the subject of python versions.. I dropped my added string, and will rely
on RPM to do the right thing most of the time. This _could_ break for
python2.2 users, but the naming just was getting too weird. Tell me if I
should keep the version string in there. It actually had to be like
"python-ldap-python2.1-cvs-1.i386.rpm" or -2.0.0pre1-1.i386.rpm...


On 1/1/02 6:34 PM, "Joe Little" <jlittle at open-it.org> wrote:

> Ok.. almost done here.
> 
> first, another error. It looks like Lib/ldap.py is not found and a warning
> is thrown. The generated files are handled differently by setup.py, and I
> get a different file list. Also, a noticed a version string of
> python-ldap-2.0.0pre1.. should I use this instead of naming it
> "python-ldap-cvs-pythonv" where pythonv is the pythonv compiled with (I
> demand at least 2.x, but people may be using 2.1 or 2.2, and site-packages
> are different)???
> 
> Here is the file list (/usr/share/doc excepted):
> 
> /usr/lib/python2.1/site-packages ....
> 
> _ldap.so
> ldapurl.py
> ldif.py
> ldap/__init__.py
> ldap/async.py
> ldap/functions.py
> ldap/ldapobject.py
> ldap/modlist.py
> 
> There used to be an ldap.pth generated and other such, and it definitely
> include an ldap.py before. It also does not pre-compile any .py file. This
> is all changed behaviour so to speak with distutils. I cannot perform a
> "install" since it will only generate onto the real directories and not an
> alternative build root. Checking a real install, the only thing lacking is
> the precompile of .py files, and I believe that is not necessary.
> 
> Tell me if the above list of files is insufficient.
> 
> On 1/1/02 5:57 PM, "Michael Ströder" <michael at stroeder.com> wrote:
> 
>> Joe Little wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 1/1/02 5:31 PM, "Michael Ströder" <michael at stroeder.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> You probably have to upgrade your OpenLDAP 2 libs. (That's what I
>>>> had to do.)
>>>> 
>>> Damnit.. your right. I did my build on a virgin redhat 7.2 box with included
>>> OpenLDAP 2.0.11 and not my version of the packages. Treats me right. a beta
>>> OpenLDAP 2.0.19 RPM sailed right through. Does anyone know where this is
>>> fixed so that I can log it?
>> 
>> Hmm, looking into the OpenLDAP libs directory:
>> 
>> liblber.so.2.0.13
>> libldap.so.2.0.13
>> 
>> 2.0.13?!?
>> 
>> Ciao, Michael.
>> 
>>