Bug 37448 - Increase FFPU limit to 50 users and 50 computers
Increase FFPU limit to 50 users and 50 computers
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Product: UCS
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LDAP
UCS 4.0
Other Linux
: P5 normal (vote)
: UCS 4.0-0-errata
Assigned To: Philipp Hahn
Florian Best
:
Depends on: 37449
Blocks: 37510
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2015-01-05 15:50 CET by Stefan Gohmann
Modified: 2015-01-09 16:38 CET (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
What kind of report is it?: ---
What type of bug is this?: ---
Who will be affected by this bug?: ---
How will those affected feel about the bug?: ---
User Pain:
Enterprise Customer affected?:
School Customer affected?:
ISV affected?:
Waiting Support:
Flags outvoted (downgraded) after PO Review:
Ticket number:
Bug group (optional):
Max CVSS v3 score:


Attachments
ffpu.ldif (1.01 KB, text/x-ldif)
2015-01-05 15:50 CET, Stefan Gohmann
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Stefan Gohmann univentionstaff 2015-01-05 15:50:48 CET
Created attachment 6567 [details]
ffpu.ldif

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.
Comment 1 Stefan Gohmann univentionstaff 2015-01-05 15:51:47 CET
The YAML file should link to the SDB article.
Comment 2 Philipp Hahn univentionstaff 2015-01-06 15:45:00 CET
(In reply to Stefan Gohmann from comment #0)
> 1. If the system is newly installed, the new FFPU license should be used.

The old license is removed from base.ldif.
The new license is added as ffpu.ldif.
Both files are concatenated when a new UCS domain is created.

> 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. 

The above mention ffpu.ldif files is automatically imported on upgrades.

> 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

As the license file is now separate, it does not need to be downloaded manually.

> b) installing the license via UMC
> c) running the activation via UMC.

<http://sdb.univention.de/1295>


r57101 | Bug #37448 licence: Update copyright 2015
r57102 | Bug #37448 License: Allow FFPU license import
r57103 | Bug #37448 LDAP: Update copyright 2015
r57104 | Bug #37448 LDAP: New FFPU license
r57106 | Revert "Bug #37448 License: Allow FFPU license import"
r57108 | Bug #37448 LDAP: New FFPU license
r57112 | Bug #37448 LDAP: New FFPU license

Package: univention-ldap
Version: 11.0.11-1.730.201501061538
Branch: ucs_4.0-0
Scope: errata4.0-0

2014-11-27-univention-ldap.yaml
r57114 | Bug #37448 LDAP: New FFPU license YAML
Comment 3 Florian Best univentionstaff 2015-01-07 13:11:05 CET
OK: new installation
OK: FFPU update without key id
OK: FFPU update with key id
OK: YAML containing SDB link

Note: The SDB article is currently not visible:
"This entry is in revision and can not be displayed."
Comment 4 Florian Best univentionstaff 2015-01-07 13:34:06 CET
As discussed, please fix these typos:
s/nothng/nothing/
s/weither/neither/
s/interaction  req/interaction req/
s/procudure/procedure/
s/containg/containing/
s/direcotory/directory/
s/Managament/Management/

Is it okay to link to this attachment? Or should we just create a <textarea> in the SDB article?
Comment 5 Philipp Hahn univentionstaff 2015-01-07 15:27:09 CET
+ s/increaded/increased/

(In reply to Florian Best from comment #4)
> Is it okay to link to this attachment? Or should we just create a <textarea>
> in the SDB article?
Done and published.
Comment 6 Florian Best univentionstaff 2015-01-07 15:32:56 CET
yes, looks nice!
Comment 7 Janek Walkenhorst univentionstaff 2015-01-08 13:57:55 CET
http://errata.univention.de/ucs/4.0/19.html