Most major distros compile samba with out the ability to do AD DC (Ubutum, Fedora, Suse) I'm not against compiling or going with a non major distro like Zentyal but why do most major distros hold back from compiling samba with AD DC support? (speculation is mostly what I'm looking for) Fedora's documentation since samba 4.0 has stated "We'll provide Samba AD DC functionality as soon as its support of MIT Kerberos KDC will be ready." This is even provided in 4.4.0rc1 build of samba for fedora 24(rawhide) I'd rather see a document that says something like so "Samba AD DC server compiled samba is incompatible with MIT Kerberos we'll provide a compatible one as soon as samba supports MIT Kerberos KDC." or something along those lines. It just seems that samba has been disjoiint on its capabilities vs what distros compile it for since 4.0 was released all that time ago. What is going on in the linux communities?
Am 09.02.2016 um 16:28 schrieb Jeff Sadowski:> Most major distros compile samba with out the ability to do AD DC (Ubutum, > Fedora, Suse) > Fedora's documentation since samba 4.0 has stated > "We'll provide Samba AD DC functionality as soon as its support of MIT > Kerberos KDC will be ready." > This is even provided in 4.4.0rc1 build of samba for fedora 24(rawhide) > > I'd rather see a document that says something like so > > "Samba AD DC server compiled samba is incompatible with MIT Kerberos we'll > provide a compatible one as soon as samba supports MIT Kerberos KDC." > > or something along those lines. > > It just seems that samba has been disjoiint on its capabilities vs what > distros compile it for since 4.0 was released all that time ago. > > What is going on in the linux communities?they included and supported MIT Kerberos long before Samba 4 did exist at all and unlikely change that for a single package -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba/attachments/20160209/b459d49b/signature.sig>
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:> > Am 09.02.2016 um 16:28 schrieb Jeff Sadowski: > >> Most major distros compile samba with out the ability to do AD DC (Ubutum, >> Fedora, Suse) >> Fedora's documentation since samba 4.0 has stated >> "We'll provide Samba AD DC functionality as soon as its support of MIT >> Kerberos KDC will be ready." >> This is even provided in 4.4.0rc1 build of samba for fedora 24(rawhide) >> >> I'd rather see a document that says something like so >> >> "Samba AD DC server compiled samba is incompatible with MIT Kerberos we'll >> provide a compatible one as soon as samba supports MIT Kerberos KDC." >> >> or something along those lines. >> >> It just seems that samba has been disjoiint on its capabilities vs what >> distros compile it for since 4.0 was released all that time ago. >> >> What is going on in the linux communities? >> > > they included and supported MIT Kerberos long before Samba 4 did exist at > all and unlikely change that for a single package > > So there would be a lot of packages that wouldn't work correctly? Thatwould be used at the same time?> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba >