Hi Moray,
Since we're in a pretty small intranet environment I chose to postpone
the OS upgrade. Thanks to the pointer to sernet - they have
centos/rhel 3/4/5 releases. Which one could be compatible to Fedora
Core 3?
Cheers, Jo
Am Fr, 27 Nov 2009 schrieb Moray Henderson :
Jo
Hi,
I'm using Samba (currently samba-3.0.10-1.fc3) in an intranet
environment under Fedora Core 3. I learned that I have to upgrade to
Samba 3.3.4 or higher in order to join new Windows 7 clients to the
domain.
Hints to binaries for this setting would be greatly appreciated.
Cheer
Hans
We have tried to do exactly the same thing this week.
Did you manage to get a solution and if so please could you post it up.
Thanks
Jo
This email has been independently scanned for viruses and any virus software
has been removed using McAfee anti-virus software
--
To
> Can you compile with -g and send in a full stack backtrace so
> we can see exactly where it's failing and if this is fixed in
> 3.0.7 ?
Thank you for the suggestion, but I never compiled samba, simply
used the redhat rpm. So I will install 3.0.7 and watch if the
error occurs
N+Print Operators
BUILTIN+Administrators
BUILTIN+Account Operators
BUILTIN+Backup Operators
BUILTIN+Users
Any pointers on what logs to look at and what to look for would be great
too. I'm still learning! TIA Jo
_
FREE* Month of Movie
When I try to join a domain from a win2k client to a samba 3.0.5
PDC, I get the message "User not found". I use ldapsam, which
works fine in all other respects.
The strange thing is that the smbldap-useradd scripts terminates
with 0, the machine account is created under "ou=systems" in the
ldap da
Back in January someone posted the question about he inability to add any
Domain object to a Local group on a Windowx XP PRO| SP1 machine). Has
anyone found the answer to be able to do this?
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: http://lists.samba.
s/Research/private/2.6.3-mm3.bz2)
[2004/02/24 10:05:07, 3, pid=29502, effective(10044, 10108), real(0, 0)]
smbd/process.c:process_smb(890)
Transaction 165 of length 44
Best Regards,
Jo
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailma
what version of samba are you using? if it's 2.2.8 I can send you
my files...
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:53:32 CDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> dear all,
>
> i will outline the problem im having before posting my smb.conf, just in
> case someone knows what to trouble-check.
>
> i have a samba PDC se
Hi jo here again ( Mr. FINALLY )
I think indeed this also applies to me, if i do 'getent group' i get
[EMAIL PROTECTED] var]# tail -f log.winbindd
[2003/08/05 11:48:14, 0] nsswitch/winbindd_group.c:winbindd_getgrent(640)
could not lookup domain group Domain Admins
[2003/08/05 1
No... just tested it :(
if you have time : does you output of wbinfo resembles this :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# wbinfo -u
root
jo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# wbinfo -g
Domain Admins
Domain Users
I REALLY wonder where these groups are stored on the pdc... I find
no trace of them in /etc/samba
Since your email address ends with samba.org, I'll
take your word for it *grin*. Sorry for all my mails then,
but I did not know that...I guess most manuals these days are
kinda hybrid.
up to 3.0 then!
Thanks for the clarification!!!
Jo De Baer
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:23:59 -0500
> b) create the user locally on the domain member, which is of course what
> we try to avoid by using winbind...
>
> any idea's why playing with the cache timeout causes a difference?
>
> Thanks in advance...
>
> the full story is below but I guess it's to lo
can you do a truss on that ?
I can compare tomorrow we also have sol 9
Jo
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:31:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am running a Samba 2.x.x on a Solaris 9 and I get this when I start the
> demon at the command line.
>
>
>
> # /usr/local/samba/bin
e.g. if someone running 2.2.8a successfully would have the time
to run 'getent group' on a domain member and garantee me that he
does NOT see the same messages appearing in the log for that member
on the samba PDC, that would tell me I'm looking in the right direction..,
*grin*
J
us people for who 'getent group' apparently
DOES work, so I have no idea why this call is in fact executed in
my case. Probable he takes a wrong turn somewhere
I am trying to trace back the call to find that wrong turn, but if
anyone can give me a hint here please do, it's a big .
ve
configure them? Think we're getting there... *grin*
Thanks
Jo
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:42:50 -0500 "Lahners, Jeremy" wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] admin]# wbinfo -u
> administrator
> Guest
> TsInternetUser
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] admin]# wbinfo -g
> DHCP Users
&g
y to avoid by using winbind...
any idea's why playing with the cache timeout causes a difference?
Thanks in advance...
the full story is below but I guess it's to long for anyone to read
*grin*
Jo De Baer
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:42:05 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
&
I can at least figure out where the difference is *grin*
'later
jo
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:29:36 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
> It is indeed on RH9.
> Winbind does seen to run well, and it answers to wbinfo queries.
>
> I can pos
winbind to run...
Thanks
Jo De Baer
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:54:59 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does anyone have information or know how I can find out what option this
> rpm was built with? ie with winbind on...
> I still seem to be having odd winbind / samba / acl problems (cannot get
ent$:x:502:501::/dev/null:/bin/false
root:x:1:1:root:/home/MYGROUP/root:/bin/false
jo:x:10001:1::/home/MYGROUP/jo:/bin/false
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# getent group
DOES NOT SHOW THE "win" GROUPS... ANY IDEA WHY? Where are
the groups stored on the samba pdc
[EMAIL PROT
.
- Original Message -
From: "Jo Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:06 PM
Subject: Misterious problem after upgrading from 2.2.4 to 2.2.6 (possible
bug?)
> Hi all,
>
> I upgraded a Samba file server which had been run
Hi all,
I upgraded a Samba file server which had been running version 2.2.4 to
2.2.6 a week ago. Since then I have had reports of a weird problem of files
mysteriously becoming read only. I just looked into one of the users having
this problem and it looked like all the write permissions had
23 matches
Mail list logo
