William Enestvedt: >> 2: the only stable, recent version of OpenLDAP (as announced by >> openldap.org) is 2.2.13. OL 2.1.22 is demonstrably buggy and will >> ultimately fsck up your system. The latest, stable, version of 2.1 is >> 2.1.30 and even that is deprecated and obsolete (source: >> openldap.org). >> > I thought that Samba 3.0.11 required OpenLDAP 2.2.23...so what's the > most reliable, most stable combination of the two? (I'm on Solaris 8, if > that matters.)
Samba 3 doesn't insist on OL 2.2.23; previous versions will work o.k., but most of them are not adjudged as stable and are probably not suitable for 24x7 production systems. including 2.1.30 with BDB 4.1 backends.. >> Learn that OpenLDAP 2.2.23 needs Sleepycat BDB 4.2.52 (2 x >> patched), maybe Cyrus SASL 2.1.20. Furthermore, that you need to >> configure DB_CONFIG to use it at all. >> > Well, can you reconcile that with the recommendation I just read to > use no database for a user like me with a single Samba server that wants to > pass on all authentication to an Active Directory server per the article > in the December "SysAdmin" magazine, at www.samag.com/documents/sam0414e/? For me, LDAP is the starting point. As I wrote, the initial motivation is production use for authenticating in Unix/desktop logins, e-mail, etc. with a a single password. There are many other bonuses, too. Samba came afterward - if it hadn't worked with the already-existent LDAP infrastructure, it would have been useless. For *everything* else, if you're not into LDAP, get things (Unix/desktop logins, e-mail, Samba, whatever) working without a DB first; then try implementing LDAP into each service by turn. --Tonni -- mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.billy.demon.nl -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba