Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Colin (Watson) explained why admin is reserved (for Ubuntu
> > purposes). I suggested we (D-I team) keep that name reserved to avoid
> > trivial "forks" for Ubuntuand having us (samba) use it enforces
> > this, indeed.
>
> > So, in short, I'm OK
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 06:21:58AM +, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Note that the correct group name was "admin", not "adm" which is a separate
> > group; there doesn't seem to be an analogous group on Debian systems, so I
> > haven't attempted to d
Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Note that the correct group name was "admin", not "adm" which is a separate
> group; there doesn't seem to be an analogous group on Debian systems, so I
> haven't attempted to do any templating here. Debian maintainers, please
> comment if you think w
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 11:13:52AM -0500, Mathias Gug wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 07:05:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Mathias, I think the last remaining issue here is that we talked about
> > auto-migrating members from one of the existing groups, such as adm, to
> > the sambashare g
Hi Steve,
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 07:05:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Mathias, I think the last remaining issue here is that we talked about
> auto-migrating members from one of the existing groups, such as adm, to
> the sambashare group. Does everyone agree this is an appropriate default
>
Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> time is simply not acceptable at all to upstream and should not be
> forwarded at this time. (This based on discussion with Jerry @ UDS, in
> which he stated it was upstream's policy to not enable additional features
> by default but that it was fine
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 07:40:03AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> 'CC'ing you as I don't remember whether you follow the package in the
> PTS or are subscribed to the mailing list)
> Quoting Mathias Gug ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Hi,
> > I've attached a diff that implements the usershare option
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 05:09:21PM +, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Could this patch be splitted between stuff that could go upstream:
> - code changes to make the value of "usershare max shares" defined at
> compile time
> - fixes to the man pages
> and those that are Debian-specific:
> - most
Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> IIRC, the conclusion we reached at UDS was that the value of "usershare max
> shares" should be set at compile time to avoid any hassle of updating
> smb.conf files, is that how you remember it as well?
>
> Also, according to the samba documentation,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 01:01:31PM -0400, Mathias Gug wrote:
> I've attached a diff that implements the usershare option with
> suggestions discussed previously.
> I've reworked the postinst script to create the sambashare group and the
> directory. I've also updated man pages (smb.conf and net)
'CC'ing you as I don't remember whether you follow the package in the
PTS or are subscribed to the mailing list)
Quoting Mathias Gug ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Hi,
>
> I've attached a diff that implements the usershare option with
> suggestions discussed previously.
All this seems fine by me.
Othe
Hi,
I've attached a diff that implements the usershare option with
suggestions discussed previously.
I've reworked the postinst script to create the sambashare group and the
directory. I've also updated man pages (smb.conf and net) to not
include the steps to setup usershares. I've replaced it wi
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 08:16:58PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Steve:
> > > usershare = yes
> > > usershare max shares =
> >
> > I'm not sure that we would want the share count to be unlimited by default
> > either, though?
>
> Well, picking a number would be tricky. One that's sui
Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I don't understand the "comes from". Do you mean that our fhs.patch is
> > responsible for the strange default directory for usershares. If it
> > is, then we should correct it, for sure.
>
> Upstream's "lockdir", which is the only directory that up
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 08:16:58PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Steve:
> > > 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
> > better make it part of the fhs patch submission then, since that's
> >
Quoting Steve:
> > 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
>
> better make it part of the fhs patch submission then, since that's
> ultimately where this comes from. :)
I don't understand the "comes from".
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 09:22:18AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > > +# 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
> > +# 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
Hi guys,
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:33:33PM -0400, Mathias Gug wrote:
> I've attached a debdiff that adds net usershare support to samba. It
> enables users part of the smbshare group to create shares using the net
> usershare command.
> More information about net usershare can me found in the m
> > That'd needs some discussion on -devel first, then.
> >
>
> AFAIC, this sounds as a reasonable default, as far as it stays
> customizable on a per file service basis
Hmmm, that would mean that the group name would be customizable.
How do you see us to make it customizable?
signature.a
Hi,
Christian Perrier a écrit :
Quoting Jérémie:
Hi,
Mathias Gug a écrit :
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 kn
Quoting Jérémie Tarot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Hi,
>
> Mathias Gug a écrit :
> > 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
> >>
Hi,
Mathias Gug a écrit :
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?
Does this really have to
Quoting Mathias Gug ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Package: samba
> Version: 3.0.26a
> Tags: patch
>
> I've attached a debdiff that adds net usershare support to samba. It
> enables users part of the smbshare group to create shares using the net
> usershare command.
>
> More information about net usersh
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 filesh
Package: samba
Version: 3.0.26a
Tags: patch
I've attached a debdiff that adds net usershare support to samba. It
enables users part of the smbshare group to create shares using the net
usershare command.
More information about net usershare can me found in the man page of the
net command:
St
26 matches
Mail list logo
