> > +# Setup usershare options to enable non-root user to share folders > > +# with the net usershare command. > > + > > +# The path were the share definition will be stored. Only members of the > > group > > +# owning the path will be able to use the net usershare command. > > + usershare path = /var/lib/samba/usershares > > Could this be better addressed by fixing the built-in default in the binary > instead of requiring an override in smb.conf? (The current default seems to > be /var/run/samba/usershares, which is simply wrong.)
I agree here. We should propose a patch to upstream as I don't see any reason to have a default to /var/run/samba/usershares > > > +# Maximum number of usershare. 0 (default) means that usershare is > > disabled. > > + usershare max shares = 100 > > Why "100" as the max shares limit? (It seems that any limit we'd choose is > arbitrary and an override of the upstream value, so I'm not particularly > bothered by the number, just wondering if there's a rationale for this > cutoff.) I think that 0 being the default AND a way to disable usershares, we need to setup a limit if we want to activate the feature. Indeed, upstream's default is a bit strange here. I would more expect one setting to activate usershares and another one to specify the maximum number (with 0 meaning no limit). Something like: usershare = yes usershare max shares = <integer> The current design completely prevents setting no limit at all except by setting the limit to an outrageously high number. > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:50:01PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > A first concern comes with the dedicated group name. Should we use > > "smbshare" and then still advertise that obsolete acronym (SMB) which > > is however known by nearly everybody? > > How about "sambashare" or "samba-share"? It does, after all, have little to > do with the smb protocol, but everything to do with the samba package. I have a small preference for "sambashare" while "cifsshare" seems more precise to me....but more cryptic for people who don't know what CIFS is. > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:14:59PM -0400, Mathias Gug wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:50:01PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > A first concern comes with the dedicated group name. Should we use > > > "smbshare" and then still advertise that obsolete acronym (SMB) which > > > is however known by nearly everybody? > > > Another proposal is to use a group named fileshare, that could be used > > to define a list of users that are allowed to define shared directories > > on the network (via samba, nfs, ftp or any other protocol). > > I'd prefer not to use a generic name here; even supposing that some other > package would want to do something similar for other protocols, there's no > reason to assume that the privilege would be granted to the same users > regardless of protocol. It's easier to add more groups to the list of > default permissions for single-user systems than it is to split a group > after the fact. Sure, I more or less had the same feeling. > > Anyway, I am in favor of enabling this feature, I just think the patch needs > a bit of work first. We definitely agree here...
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
