[Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#905219: Bug#905219: slapd: apt-get upgrade with Duplicate attributeType: "2.5.4.2"

[Ryan Tandy]

Hi Jack,

Just wondering whether you'd seen my previous response on this bug 
(included below).

I was looking at this again, though, and noticed the debconf information 
on your original post:

>-- Configuration Files:
>/etc/default/slapd changed:
>SLAPD_CONF=
>SLAPD_USER="openldap"
>SLAPD_GROUP="openldap"
>SLAPD_PIDFILE=
>SLAPD_SERVICES=""
>SLAPD_SENTINEL_FILE=/etc/ldap/noslapd
>SLAPD_OPTIONS="-f /etc/ldap/slapd.conf"

Setting the config file location this way is probably confusing the 
maintainer scripts and might even be the root cause of your problem. An 
empty SLAPD_CONF setting is equivalent to "-F /etc/ldap/slapd.d", i.e., 
using the new cn=config style. The config location (and type!) isn't 
parsed out of SLAPD_OPTIONS at all.

If you really want to use slapd.conf, I recommend reverting 
SLAPD_OPTIONS to the default SLAPD_OPTIONS="" and setting 
SLAPD_CONF="/etc/ldap/slapd.conf".

The package should probably be detecting this situation and warning you 
about it...

On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 08:22:36AM -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote:
>Hi Jack,
>
>Thanks for the report.
>
>On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 10:35:00AM -0400, Jack McKinney wrote:
>>Saving current slapd configuration to /var/backups/slapd-2.4.44+dfsg-5+deb9u1...
>>5b61c485 olcAttributeTypes: value #0 olcAttributeTypes: Duplicate attributeType: "2.5.4.2"
>>5b61c485 config error processing cn={0}core,cn=schema,cn=config: olcAttributeTypes: Duplicate attributeType: "2.5.4.2"
>>slapcat: bad configuration directory!
>
>Interesting. I wonder how it got that way?
>
>Can you confirm by pasting the output of:
>
>grep -Frw 2.5.4.2 /etc/ldap/slapd.d
>
>that it actually occurs twice in your config?
>
>You might have some older config backups in /var/backups/slapd-*; can 
>you also check those and see if you can determine in which version it 
>was introduced?
>
>What is your upgrade history like for slapd? Were you running 
>2.4.44+dfsg-5 and then upgraded to +deb9u1 before this upgrade to 
>+deb9u2?
>
>If there is a bug in the package, I would be most suspicious of the 
>upgrade path from jessie to stretch...
>
>thanks,
>Ryan