Bug#268010: Any progress on the issue?

[Christian Perrier]

> > I would vote to forward this patch to upstream because adding new
> > configuration parameters impacts the documentation and we certainly
> > don't want to have Debian's samba to behave differently from upstream.
> 
> Um, it's not an upstream bug.  The Debian FHS patch disables the existing
> 'lock dir' option because it has non-FHS semantics; and it doesn't provide

Ah, OK. Then as I suspected, this bug is related to bugs about the
disabled "lock dir" and thus to the two other bugs I mentioned.

> I'm not keen to create Debian-specific smb.conf options, though; the FHS

Yes. I would definitely vote *against* this because this would need
maintaining specific documentation for it and it would anyway be very
confusing for our users who rely on the numerous documentation about
Samba.

For software which is as popular as samba, we really must saty as
close to upstream as possible. I think everyone here will agree.

> patch desperately needs to be forwarded/integrated upstream, but this is
> going to take a fair amount of time for someone to discuss it with all the
> affected parties, work out which branch it should be integrated on, etc.
> I'm confident that the FHS patch does the right thing by Debian, but it may
> not meet the needs of other vendors.


This makes a very interesting topic to work on at the mini
samba+Debian meeting I've proposed for the next SambaXP

We really need to find a way to bring you there, Steve..:)




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#268010: Any progress on the issue?

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 07:07:48PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Sergio Talens-Oliag ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I'm also interested in being able to run two different samba servers and 
> > when
> > trying to set the ldap admin password I've found that bug... is there any
> > reason not to add the given patch or an updated one?

> (patch by Jacobo adding "cache dir" and "state dir" configuration parameters)

> Well, apart from the huge work involved in going through all bug
> reports and triage them, nothing..:-)

> I would vote to forward this patch to upstream because adding new
> configuration parameters impacts the documentation and we certainly
> don't want to have Debian's samba to behave differently from upstream.

Um, it's not an upstream bug.  The Debian FHS patch disables the existing
'lock dir' option because it has non-FHS semantics; and it doesn't provide
runtime configuration options for the internal cache dir and state dir
values, because at the time it was written they seemed unnecessary.  There's
been enough demand for this that they're probably worth adding, though as
has been noted in the past, one can very effectively shoot oneself in the
foot by running two copies of Samba on a single system (if they share the
same directory and don't use kernel oplocks, having separate cache dirs is a
great way to corrupt your data!).

I'm not keen to create Debian-specific smb.conf options, though; the FHS
patch desperately needs to be forwarded/integrated upstream, but this is
going to take a fair amount of time for someone to discuss it with all the
affected parties, work out which branch it should be integrated on, etc.
I'm confident that the FHS patch does the right thing by Debian, but it may
not meet the needs of other vendors.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#268010: Any progress on the issue?

[Christian Perrier]

Quoting Sergio Talens-Oliag ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I'm also interested in being able to run two different samba servers and when
> trying to set the ldap admin password I've found that bug... is there any
> reason not to add the given patch or an updated one?

(patch by Jacobo adding "cache dir" and "state dir" configuration parameters)

Well, apart from the huge work involved in going through all bug
reports and triage them, nothing..:-)

I would vote to forward this patch to upstream because adding new
configuration parameters impacts the documentation and we certainly
don't want to have Debian's samba to behave differently from upstream.

However, I'm wondeing why this never came from upstream and I suspect
they may have a good reason for not having a "cache dir" and a "state
dir" configuration parameter.

We also have other bugs in samba's BTS which are all related
to people wanting to run two samba daemons on the same host. These bug
reports are rather incriminating the fhs.patch patch than proposing
new configuration parameters. See #247163, #249873

Let's see if one of the Samba Team members who are subscribed to the
Package Tracking System will react here...

CC'ing the maintenance list in case some people are subscribed to it
but not to the PTS.





-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#268010: Any progress on the issue?

[Sergio Talens-Oliag]

I'm also interested in being able to run two different samba servers and when
trying to set the ldap admin password I've found that bug... is there any
reason not to add the given patch or an updated one?

Greetings,

  Sergio.

-- 
Sergio Talens-Oliag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
Key fingerprint = 29DF 544F  1BD9 548C  8F15 86EF  6770 052B  B8C1 FA69


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature