samba - Jul 2024 - new DC via clone..

Hello Rowland, all of Samba,

imho the fact that one cannot simply replace parts of samba is a severe
restriction to analyze and fix issues. I decided to compile the exact same
version that was in place, and ran into issues. Imho Samba should have
instructions on how to compile a version matching the installed version and
configuration. Figuring out the delta between the two configurations is beyond
my current knowledge.

My goal was very, very simple. In line 630 of source4/samba/process_prefork.c I
wanted to add the service name in order to make visible, what service failed:
DBG_ERR("Parent %d, Child %d, Service %s exited with status %d\n",
getpid(), pid,  rc->service_name, status);

Maybe someone can pick these suggestions up.

Regards,
Joachim

> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: samba <samba-bounces at lists.samba.org> Im Auftrag von Rowland
> Penny via samba
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Juli 2024 16:09
> An: samba at lists.samba.org
> Cc: Rowland Penny <rpenny at samba.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Samba] new DC via clone..
> 
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 15:45:21 +0200
> Joachim Lindenberg via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> 
> > in an attempt to analyze the misbehaviour of my clone I compiled samba
> > (version 4.19.7) from sources, following
> > https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Build_Samba_from_Source#make. When
> I
> > entered "make install" however, it started a new
compile/link with
> > even more sources [yy/5891] after compilation of preceeding make
> > succeeded [xx/4536]. This is not what I expected to happen - imho
> > install just copies files. Any ideas?
> 
> Yes, it does that, not really compiling much, more creating man pages etc,
if I
> remember correctly.
> 
> > Then I also tried ./configure
> > to change the pathes and figured out, the "..." is probably
not
> > required and one could supply multiple options in a single call,
> > correct?
> 
> If you run './configure --help' it will give you a full list of its
options. However,
> it is a bit more complicated than just setting paths, there made old bits
of your
> original Samba left behind if you just install a self compiled Samba over a
> distro package Samba.
> If you are going down this path, then I would suggest either building Samba
as
> distro packages or into the default /usr/local/samba .
> 
> > After changing the paths, make, make install, and systemctl start
> > samba-ad-dc I get "exit_daemon: daemon failed to start: Samba
failed
> > to prime database, error code 22" As I replaced version
> > 4.19.7-Ubuntu: why can the database formats differ? Or what else could
> > have gone wrong? Thanks, Joachim
> 
> If I understand that correctly, you built Samba on an existing DC and
installed
> your Samba over the existing distro Samba. If that is the case, then I
don't
> think that was a good idea.
> 
> Rowland
> 
> >
> >
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 09:01:54 +0200
Joachim Lindenberg via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> Hello Rowland, all of Samba,
> 
> imho the fact that one cannot simply replace parts of samba is a
> severe restriction to analyze and fix issues. I decided to compile
> the exact same version that was in place, and ran into issues.
Well yes, but you seemingly didn't compile Samba in the same way as
your original installed Samba.
> Imho Samba should have instructions on how to compile a version
> matching the installed version and configuration. Figuring out the
> delta between the two configurations is beyond my current knowledge.
And mine.
> 
> My goal was very, very simple. In line 630 of
> source4/samba/process_prefork.c I wanted to add the service name in
> order to make visible, what service failed: DBG_ERR("Parent %d, Child
> %d, Service %s exited with status %d\n", getpid(), pid,
> rc->service_name, status);
Whilst this sounds very easy to do, to do it correctly you would need
to know just where 'process_prefork.c' ends up, what particular part of
Samba uses it, once that is known, you could just replace that
particular piece of Samba, provided everything else is compiled exactly
in the same way, I don't think that would be easy. The easiest way
would be to rebuild your distros Samba package sources using your
slight change and then install the resultant Samba packages over your
install.

Rowland