On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 20:17:11 -0500 "James B. Byrne" <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote:> > Does this mean that I have missed a step in provisioning? Or does it > mean there is a defect in the packaging for FreeBSD? >I am wondering if you have actually fully provisioned. I have tried to provision samba44 and, for some reason, it will not run the provision command unless I run it interactively and when I do, it segfaults. Rowland
On 02/10/2017 11:57, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 20:17:11 -0500 > "James B. Byrne" <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: > > >> >> Does this mean that I have missed a step in provisioning? Or does it >> mean there is a defect in the packaging for FreeBSD? >> > > I am wondering if you have actually fully provisioned. I have tried to > provision samba44 and, for some reason, it will not run the > provision command unless I run it interactively and when I do, it > segfaults. > > Rowland > >I also tried now to install and provision both samba43 and samba44 on FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE-p7. With samba43 it worked successfully (it had this problem previously, too). As for samba44, I could provision it on an i386 architecture, but on amd64 it segfaulted as usually. When built from source, 4.4.9 doesn't segfault at provisioning on either architecture, so that's what I use for now. Alnis
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 17:46:23 +0200 Alnis Morics via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:> I also tried now to install and provision both samba43 and samba44 on > FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE-p7. With samba43 it worked successfully (it had > this problem previously, too). As for samba44, I could provision it > on an i386 architecture, but on amd64 it segfaulted as usually. > > When built from source, 4.4.9 doesn't segfault at provisioning on > either architecture, so that's what I use for now.That's interesting, I never thought to ask the OP what arch he was using and if he mentioned it, I never noticed. I have managed to provision a DC in an x86_64 VM using samba43, but using samba44, it segfaults Rowland