On 2017-02-14 00:53, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
Ian McWilliam writes:
I'm afraid that this diff is not the right direction. The reason why
we
keep using 4.4.5 is that a library was removed between 4.4.5 and 4.4.8,
so the diff as is probably doesn't package without a PLIST change.
Als
On 2017-02-09 20:40, Ian McWilliam wrote:
Here's an update to Samba 4.4.9 on OpenBSD 6.0-stable.
Hopefully I've included all the bit's needed from the Samba 4 ACL
thread.
Please test. Hopefully we can get this committed.
Ian McWilliam
I'm not sure if we should enable --with-ntvfs-fileserve
On 2017-02-08 20:42, alexmcwhir...@triadic.us wrote:
On 2017-02-03 14:04, Vijay Sankar wrote:
Hi Jeremie,
I tested this over the past few days.
If I change skip_sysvolacl=False to skip_sysvolacl=True in
/usr/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/samba/netcmd/domain.py, I am
able to
create the do
On 2017-02-03 14:04, Vijay Sankar wrote:
Hi Jeremie,
I tested this over the past few days.
If I change skip_sysvolacl=False to skip_sysvolacl=True in
/usr/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/samba/netcmd/domain.py, I am
able to
create the domain, add additional DC's as well as additional member
On 2017-02-06 20:21, Ian McWilliam wrote:
Here's a back port from current. It's still compiling for me, so
things may not work.
You'll also need to update level/libtalloc and database/tdb.
Just built this and did some minor testing. Everything is working as
expected. Created users / groups wi
On 2017-02-06 01:00, Ian McWilliam wrote:
Generally back porting like this unless its a major security thing is
not done to stable.
differences to the 6.0-stable from current
--with-ntvfs-fileserver \
--without-gpgme
LDB_V = 1.1.2
Here are my testing results.
OpenBSD 5.9 - BASE (Samba 4.1): Works as expected with ntvfs
OpenBSD 5.9 - STABLE (Samba 4.3): Works as expected with ntvfs
OpenBSD 6.0 - BASE (Samba 4.4): Had to modify makefile to include ntvfs
support. smb service (aka ntvfs) fails to start
OpenBSD 6.0 - STABL
On 2017-02-03 17:03, Vijay Sankar wrote:
Quoting Alex McWhirter :
Can you post your smb.conf? Are you using acl_tdb / xattr_tdb?
Here is the smb.conf from a DC (vm on qemu).
vnpsad.lab.foretell.ca$ cat
/etc/samba/smb.conf
# Global parameters
[global]
I gave -current a shot today, it works fine with ntvfs. I think the 6.0
release package was built without "--with-ntvfs-fileserver" which is the
cause of the issue. I took a look at -stable and it is also missing
"--with-ntvfs-fileserver" so it is also most likely broken in regards to
using sam
On 2017-02-01 18:12, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
It's not just ACLs, but also extended attributes. I would strongly
suggest that anyone interested should first ask for general agreement
on
tech@.
Not that it's an ideal solution, but the xattr tdb backed seems to work
fine, at least in
On 2017-02-01 17:34, Ian McWilliam wrote:
Without going through the Samba code and trying to determine what and
why the changes were made by the Samba devs, I don't have an answer.
There have been a lot of changes to the internals of samba from
release to release e.g. 4.1 branch vs 4.5 branch, et
On 2017-02-01 15:16, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
Cc'ing Ian, in case he has a clue.
alexmcwhir...@triadic.us writes:
On 2017-01-31 07:53, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
This looks like an error from ''samba-tool domain provision'', not an
error from the samba daemon.
Please state exactl
On 2017-01-31 07:53, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
This looks like an error from ''samba-tool domain provision'', not an
error from the samba daemon.
Please state exactly:
- which OpenBSD release you're using
- which samba version you're using (hint, on -stable only the -stable
samba port is
On 2017-01-31 06:51, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
AFAIK samba 4.4+ doesn't actually require the use of filesystem-level
ACLs. With s3fs, ACLs and Extended Attributes can be emulated with
the appropriate modules. These days I'm staying away from samba 'cause
I can't properly test it, but iirc
I have a few machines stuck on 5.9 with samba 4.1 running as a domain
controller. It seems i can't really upgrade these machines to 6.0 and
most likely 6.1 as samba 4.4 forces the use of s3fs which requires posix
ACL's. I was wondering if anyone else has the same issue or has heard of
anything
15 matches
Mail list logo
