Univention Bugzilla – Bug 37510
Increase FFPU limit to 50 users and 50 computers
Last modified: 2023-03-25 06:43:02 CET
The SDB article http://sdb.univention.de/1295 doesn't work for me, at least not with the given FFPU license text/file. I failed both on command line and in UMC due to "wrong base DN". After I modified the DN in the downloaded ldif to meet my base DN the command line import worked, but this step is not described in the SDB article. +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #37448 +++ Currently, the limit for the FFPU license is set to 5 users and 5 managed clients. The limit should set to 50 users and 50 managed clients. 1. If the system is newly installed, the new FFPU license should be used. 2. If the system is updated and the old FFPU license is installed and the license has not been activated (univentionLicenseKeyID is not set), the new FFPU license should be installed. 3. If the system is already activated, a SDB article should be added which explains the following steps: a) downloading the new FFPU license from the SDB b) installing the license via UMC c) running the activation via UMC. The import via UMC is currently not possible. I'll create a new bug for the UMC import.
WORKS-FOR-ME: (In reply to Ingo Steuwer from comment #0) > I failed both on command line this is expected as my patch to fix univention-license-import was reverted (r57106) on request by Stefan. > and in UMC due to "wrong base DN". You need errata18: # dpkg-query -W univention-management-console-module-udm univention-management-console-module-udm 5.1.25-35.545.201501071849 > After I modified the DN in the downloaded ldif to meet my base DN the command line import worked, but this step is not described in the SDB article. This is why Bug #37449 was required: It automatically adds the base-DN in import through the UMC.
Yes, please update to errata-18. Philipp, maybe it's good to mention this more clearly in the SDB article?
(In reply to Florian Best from comment #2) > Philipp, maybe it's good to mention this more clearly in the SDB article? 1st sentence and UCS version info should be enough, no?
(In reply to Philipp Hahn from comment #3) > (In reply to Florian Best from comment #2) > > Philipp, maybe it's good to mention this more clearly in the SDB article? > > 1st sentence and UCS version info should be enough, no? The system is on errata 21. The main difference is that the UMC import has been tried on a DC Backup, as the DC Master UMC in this environment fails due to Bug #36658. The failure on the DC Backup was Bug #34451.
OK