On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:43:47AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > On (07/05/14 10:37), Jakub Hrozek wrote: > >On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 09:50:39AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > >> On (07/05/14 09:29), Paul Liljenberg wrote: > >> >hm in the last working setup i used 1.11 branch with the ad provider. To > >> >be > >> >sure successful signon works it would be nice to have some reference > >> >config > >> >that we know works with that branch. ( > >> >https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/Configuring_sssd_with_ad_server) Ive > >> >only seen this for the ad provider. Do we need samba-dev to build the > >> >adprovider for 1.9 branch aswell? > >> > >> The 1.9 branch has ad provider, but there isn't strict dependency on > >> samba-dev. > >> Of course, there are not all features from 1.11 branch. > >> > >> I could not find in source code why samba is optional in 1.9 branch. > >> Someone else should explain this. > >> > >> LS > > > >According to a bit of git digging, the unconditional samba4-libs > >dependency was added when site discovery support was implemented. > > > >I'm not sure if you're talking about a proper Debian/Ubuntu backport or > >some kind of PPA, but wouldn't it be easiest for a PPA to not package > >the AD back end at all and only package the LDAP provider? The current > >1.8 users are using LDAP only anyway.. > If you want to pacakge 1.11 branch on debian stable you will need to build it. > If you want to build 1.11 branch on debian stable you will need to install > samba4 develompment header files. samba-dev is not available on debian > stable.
Right, I was thinking of having a build-time only samba4 package as well..but if that's not an option, then I guess you'd have to patch the Makefile to not build the sssd-ad provider at all.. _______________________________________________ sssd-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-users
