Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Samba4 rpm
On 02/08/2013 08:56 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Paul Robert Marino wrote: I should be making some samba4 rpms soon but mine will not start with fedora. RedHat has this insane idea that they are going to fix MIT kerberos 5 after more than a decade of it being broken. So they've stripped out the embedded heimdal kdc. The problem is it doesn't work properly without heimdal. And the latest version of heimdal is compatible with the kdc in windows server 2012. Ps don't worry I'm not going to replace the mit libraries or client that would be crazy instead I'm going to install them heimdal versions in different locations. ??? Oh, boy. I interviewed there for a QA role on the IPA project. (Good role, I think I just didn't have the deep Kerberos chops they were looking for.) I've grabbed the Fedora 18 SRPM and am trying to backport it. It has these missing dependencies in SL 6: iniparser libldb # breaks dependences for sssd on old libldb version libtalloc libtdb libtevent systemd # the new init script scheme in recent Fedora releases For a number of those dependencies, Samba 4.0.2 won't even compile on SL 6 without updates. I looked at systemd a ways back, getting that on SL6 is basically impossible. By the time you've chased its dependencies there aren't a whole lot of core libraries that you've left alone. Pat -- Sent from my HP Pre3 On Feb 8, 2013 1:39 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: Not a problem. The "samba4" package in SL 6, and the upstream vendor's package, is *nasty*. It should have been called something like "openchange-samba4" because it's a stripped Samba 4 release, designed to be used as a plugin for OpenChange softwae and under no circumstances to operate as a an actual Samba server. I've taken a potshot at backporting the Fedora 18 release of Samba to SL 6, and it's an adventure in dependencies. Just to start with, the "tdb" release has to be at least version 1.2.10 for Samba 4, and as soon as you starting basic system libraries, you're in potential dependency hell. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Andrew Z wrote: Mark, Nico, i went ahead with the 3rd version. Thank you! AZ On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Mark Stodola wrote: On 02/07/2013 04:17 PM, Andrew Z wrote: Hello, i need to set up samba. and apparently there was a new release 4 already. so i did yum search, but: samba4-4.0.0-23.alpha11.el6.x86_64 [root@server ~]# rpm -ql samba4 /usr/share/doc/samba4-4.0.0 /usr/share/doc/samba4-4.0.0/COPYING /usr/share/doc/samba4-4.0.0/WHATSNEW4.txt -- Pat Riehecky Scientific Linux Developer
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Samba4 rpm
-- Sent from my HP Pre3On Feb 8, 2013 10:06 AM, Pat Riehecky wrote: On 02/08/2013 08:56 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Paul Robert Marino wrote: >> I should be making some samba4 rpms soon but mine will not start with >> fedora. RedHat has this insane idea that they are going to fix MIT kerberos >> 5 after more than a decade of it being broken. So they've stripped out the >> embedded heimdal kdc. The problem is it doesn't work properly without >> heimdal. And the latest version of heimdal is compatible with the kdc in >> windows server 2012. >> Ps don't worry I'm not going to replace the mit libraries or client that >> would be crazy instead I'm going to install them heimdal versions in >> different locations. > ??? Oh, boy. I interviewed there for a QA role on the IPA project. > (Good role, I think I just didn't have the deep Kerberos chops they > were looking for.) > > I've grabbed the Fedora 18 SRPM and am trying to backport it. It has > these missing dependencies in SL 6: > > iniparser > libldb # breaks dependences for sssd on old libldb version > libtalloc > libtdb > libtevent > systemd # the new init script scheme in recent Fedora releases As I said I'm not going to start with the fedora rpm so there will be NO systemd dependency.And there are other ways to work around library dependencies without breaking current functionality.I know its the trend and for good reason to put only one version of a library on a system but you can put multiple version on a host with alternate paths outside the normal search paths. This is the reason why the configure script lets you specify the paths to the libraries you want to use.Also I suspect at least one of the other dependencies are fedora specific.And just as an aside last I looked at systemd I didn't think it was fully baked yet. Many of the init scripts were ported in a haphazard rushed manner as a result they don't all work the way they really should. Also I question some of the logic for servers. Some of the capabilities of systemd are great for desktops but scary on a server. I go to great lengthens to ensure that if someone plugs something in to one of my boxes nothing happens and now here is a service control system built around the premise of doing exactly what I want to prevent.Further more the CLI is clunky and not the most functional or initiative set of commands for sysadmins who don't use X11.> > For a number of those dependencies, Samba 4.0.2 won't even compile on > SL 6 without updates. I looked at systemd a ways back, getting that on SL6 is basically impossible. By the time you've chased its dependencies there aren't a whole lot of core libraries that you've left alone. Pat > >> >> >> -- Sent from my HP Pre3 >> >> >> On Feb 8, 2013 1:39 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> >> Not a problem. The "samba4" package in SL 6, and the upstream vendor's >> package, is *nasty*. It should have been called something like >> "openchange-samba4" because it's a stripped Samba 4 release, designed >> to be used as a plugin for OpenChange softwae and under no >> circumstances to operate as a an actual Samba server. >> >> I've taken a potshot at backporting the Fedora 18 release of Samba to >> SL 6, and it's an adventure in dependencies. Just to start with, >> the "tdb" release has to be at least version 1.2.10 for Samba 4, and >> as soon as you starting basic system libraries, you're in potential >> dependency hell. >> >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Andrew Z wrote: >>> Mark, Nico, >>> i went ahead with the 3rd version. Thank you! >>> AZ >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia >>> wrote: On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Mark Stodola wrote: > On 02/07/2013 04:17 PM, Andrew Z wrote: >> Hello, >> >> i need to set up samba. and apparently there was a new release 4 >> already. >> so i did yum search, but: >> >> samba4-4.0.0-23.alpha11.el6.x86_64 >> [root@server ~]# rpm -ql samba4 >> /usr/share/doc/samba4-4.0.0 >> /usr/share/doc/samba4-4.0.0/COPYING >> /usr/share/doc/samba4-4.0.0/WHATSNEW4.txt -- Pat Riehecky Scientific Linux Developer
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Samba4 rpm
On Feb 8, 2013, at 17:01 , Paul Robert Marino wrote: > And just as an aside last I looked at systemd I didn't think it was fully > baked yet. Many of the init scripts were ported in a haphazard rushed manner > as a result they don't all work the way they really should. Also I question > some of the logic for servers. Some of the capabilities of systemd are great > for desktops but scary on a server. I go to great lengthens to ensure that if > someone plugs something in to one of my boxes nothing happens and now here is > a service control system built around the premise of doing exactly what I > want to prevent. > Further more the CLI is clunky and not the most functional or initiative set > of commands for sysadmins who don't use X11. I happen to like systemd. It feels a bit strange, but it's not bad at all. And with SL7, it's going to be upon us. If you have problems with it, file bugs against F18 *now* and against EL7 beta as soon as possible. Stephan -- Stephan Wiesand DESY -DV- Platanenenallee 6 15738 Zeuthen, Germany
Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] Samba4 rpm
-- Sent from my HP Pre3On Feb 8, 2013 11:12 AM, Stephan Wiesand wrote: On Feb 8, 2013, at 17:01 , Paul Robert Marino wrote: > And just as an aside last I looked at systemd I didn't think it was fully baked yet. Many of the init scripts were ported in a haphazard rushed manner as a result they don't all work the way they really should. Also I question some of the logic for servers. Some of the capabilities of systemd are great for desktops but scary on a server. I go to great lengthens to ensure that if someone plugs something in to one of my boxes nothing happens and now here is a service control system built around the premise of doing exactly what I want to prevent. > Further more the CLI is clunky and not the most functional or initiative set of commands for sysadmins who don't use X11. I happen to like systemd. It feels a bit strange, but it's not bad at all. And with SL7, it's going to be upon us. If you have problems with it, file bugs against F18 *now* and against EL7 beta as soon as possible. Well I'm not saying it doesn't have potential I just think its going to be a few years before it will lice up to its potential and there are going to be some serious growing pains in the mean time. And I've said so on the some of redhats discussion forums about RHEL 7. Also does any one use a new major x.0 release in anything mission critical I know I don't. I let it simmer for a year that's not to say I don't test on it but usually any x.0 release of rhel and sl has bugs and will need tuning. Stephan -- Stephan Wiesand DESY -DV- Platanenenallee 6 15738 Zeuthen, Germany
