From 3295e65b6024775749615d87822f3580ecf00c18 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Philip Hazel <ph10@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:12:12 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] The patch to support LDAP_SEARCH_RES_REFERENCE was
 unconditional; it seems that some versions of LDAP don't have this (e.g.
 OpenLDAP v1, which is of course pretty old, but some people still use it).
 I've modified the patch to exclude the functionality when the macro isn't
 defined.

---
 doc/doc-txt/ChangeLog  |  6 +++++-
 src/src/lookups/ldap.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------
 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/doc-txt/ChangeLog b/doc/doc-txt/ChangeLog
index ac63deb12..430aa8692 100644
--- a/doc/doc-txt/ChangeLog
+++ b/doc/doc-txt/ChangeLog
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-$Cambridge: exim/doc/doc-txt/ChangeLog,v 1.68 2005/01/12 15:41:27 ph10 Exp $
+$Cambridge: exim/doc/doc-txt/ChangeLog,v 1.69 2005/01/13 11:12:12 ph10 Exp $
 
 Change log file for Exim from version 4.21
 -------------------------------------------
@@ -234,6 +234,10 @@ Exim version 4.50
       But simultaneously result of request was absolutely normal ldap result,
       so I produce this patch..."
 
+    Later: it seems that not all versions of LDAP support LDAP_RES_SEARCH_
+    REFERENCE, so I have modified the code to exclude the patch when that macro
+    is not defined.
+
 55. Some experimental protocols are using DNS PTR records for new purposes. The
     keys for these records are domain names, not reversed IP addresses. The
     dnsdb PTR lookup now tests whether its key is an IP address. If not, it
diff --git a/src/src/lookups/ldap.c b/src/src/lookups/ldap.c
index c32038ba1..ac1a8d824 100644
--- a/src/src/lookups/ldap.c
+++ b/src/src/lookups/ldap.c
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* $Cambridge: exim/src/src/lookups/ldap.c,v 1.7 2005/01/04 10:00:44 ph10 Exp $ */
+/* $Cambridge: exim/src/src/lookups/ldap.c,v 1.8 2005/01/13 11:12:12 ph10 Exp $ */
 
 /*************************************************
 *     Exim - an Internet mail transport agent    *
@@ -789,9 +789,15 @@ if (rc == -1 || result == NULL)
 
 /* A return code that isn't -1 doesn't necessarily mean there were no problems
 with the search. The message must be an LDAP_RES_SEARCH_RESULT or 
-LDAP_RES_SEARCH_REFERENCE or else it's something we can't handle. */
-
-if (rc != LDAP_RES_SEARCH_RESULT && rc != LDAP_RES_SEARCH_REFERENCE)
+LDAP_RES_SEARCH_REFERENCE or else it's something we can't handle. Some versions 
+of LDAP do not define LDAP_RES_SEARCH_REFERENCE (LDAP v1 is one, it seems). So 
+we don't provide that functionality when we can't. :-) */
+
+if (rc != LDAP_RES_SEARCH_RESULT 
+#ifdef LDAP_RES_SEARCH_REFERENCE
+    && rc != LDAP_RES_SEARCH_REFERENCE
+#endif     
+   )
   {
   *errmsg = string_sprintf("ldap_result returned unexpected code %d", rc);
   goto RETURN_ERROR;
@@ -806,8 +812,11 @@ We need to parse the message to find out exactly what's happened. */
     CSS &error2, NULL, NULL, 0);
   DEBUG(D_lookup) debug_printf("ldap_parse_result: %d\n", ldap_parse_rc);
   if (ldap_parse_rc < 0 && 
-      (ldap_parse_rc != LDAP_NO_RESULTS_RETURNED ||
-       ldap_rc != LDAP_RES_SEARCH_REFERENCE))
+      (ldap_parse_rc != LDAP_NO_RESULTS_RETURNED
+      #ifdef LDAP_RES_SEARCH_REFERENCE 
+      || ldap_rc != LDAP_RES_SEARCH_REFERENCE
+      #endif  
+     ))
     {
     *errmsg = string_sprintf("ldap_parse_result failed %d", ldap_parse_rc);
     goto RETURN_ERROR;
-- 
2.30.2