On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 14:15:57 -0400 lingpanda101 via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:> On 11/3/2016 2:03 PM, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > > On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 06:56:32 +1300 > > Andrew Bartlett via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 13:17 -0400, lingpanda101 via samba wrote: > >>> On 11/3/2016 12:07 PM, Marc Muehlfeld via samba wrote: > >>>> Hi Bob, > >>>> > >>>> Am 03.11.2016 um 16:43 schrieb Bob of Donelson Trophy via samba: > >>>>> I have seen you state this before that "server services" line > >>>>> within a > >>>>> smb.conf file is not necessary on a DC. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have to ask, and it may have been asked before but, I recently > >>>>> install > >>>>> from source the v4.5.0 and during provisioning samba created > >>>>> that "line" > >>>>> within the smb.conf file. > >>>>> > >>>>> I understand what and why your saying this but, if the line is > >>>>> not > >>>>> needed then why does provisioning a ADDC create the line? > >>>> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/FAQ#Why_I_Do_Not_Have_a_server_ser > >>>> vices_parameter_in_My_smb.conf_File.3F > >>>> > >>>> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/FAQ#Can_I_Disable_Some_of_the_serv > >>>> er_services_options_in_the_smb.conf_File.3F > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Marc > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Marc, > >>> > >>> Is this correct from the wiki? > >>> > >>> "If you are running Samba 4.2 or later, you can disable the > >>> |samba| internal |winbindd| daemon and switch to the recommended > >>> |winbind| daemon. To switch, set:" > >>> > >>> I thought winbindd was preferred over winbind? > >> It doens't matter. I made them an alias for each other when I > >> dropped the internal winbind for 4.2. (I don't like breaking > >> config files, and the generated line with all the values listed > >> wasn't intentional. It was meant to be printed as "server services > >> = -dns" or omitted, but some magic got in the way and now we are a > >> bit stuck. > >> > >> Andrew Bartlett > >> > > Hi Andrew, > > > > Pardon ??? > > > > The guy was asking about 'winbindd' & 'winbind' and you seem to be > > talking about dns. > > > > In answer to lingpanda101, the wiki is correct, but could be worded > > better, 'winbind' isn't recommended over 'winbindd'. > > > > Rowland > > > > Rowland, > > That's what I meant. It sounded as if winbind was preferred over > winbindd. Thanks for the clarification. >I have altered the wiki page, it now says that you can change from the recommended 'winbindd' to the older 'winbind' Rowland
On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 18:40 +0000, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 14:15:57 -0400 > lingpanda101 via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > > On 11/3/2016 2:03 PM, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 06:56:32 +1300 > > > Andrew Bartlett via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 13:17 -0400, lingpanda101 via samba > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 11/3/2016 12:07 PM, Marc Muehlfeld via samba wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bob, > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 03.11.2016 um 16:43 schrieb Bob of Donelson Trophy via > > > > > > samba: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you state this before that "server services" > > > > > > > line > > > > > > > within a > > > > > > > smb.conf file is not necessary on a DC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have to ask, and it may have been asked before but, I > > > > > > > recently > > > > > > > install > > > > > > > from source the v4.5.0 and during provisioning samba > > > > > > > created > > > > > > > that "line" > > > > > > > within the smb.conf file. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand what and why your saying this but, if the > > > > > > > line is > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > needed then why does provisioning a ADDC create the line? > > > > > > https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/FAQ#Why_I_Do_Not_Have_a_se > > > > > > rver_ser > > > > > > vices_parameter_in_My_smb.conf_File.3F > > > > > > > > > > > > https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/FAQ#Can_I_Disable_Some_of_ > > > > > > the_serv > > > > > > er_services_options_in_the_smb.conf_File.3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > Is this correct from the wiki? > > > > > > > > > > "If you are running Samba 4.2 or later, you can disable the > > > > > > > > > > > > samba| internal |winbindd| daemon and switch to the > > > > > > recommended > > > > > > winbind| daemon. To switch, set:" > > > > > > > > > > I thought winbindd was preferred over winbind? > > > > It doens't matter. I made them an alias for each other when I > > > > dropped the internal winbind for 4.2. (I don't like breaking > > > > config files, and the generated line with all the values listed > > > > wasn't intentional. It was meant to be printed as "server > > > > services > > > > = -dns" or omitted, but some magic got in the way and now we > > > > are a > > > > bit stuck. > > > > > > > > Andrew Bartlett > > > > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > Pardon ??? > > > > > > The guy was asking about 'winbindd' & 'winbind' and you seem to > > > be > > > talking about dns. > > > > > > In answer to lingpanda101, the wiki is correct, but could be > > > worded > > > better, 'winbind' isn't recommended over 'winbindd'. > > > > > > Rowland > > > > > > > Rowland, > > > > That's what I meant. It sounded as if winbind was preferred > > over > > winbindd. Thanks for the clarification. > > > > I have altered the wiki page, it now says that you can change from > the > recommended 'winbindd' to the older 'winbind'My point is that there is no longer an internal winbind in any supported version of samba, only winbindd, the long-standing codebase currently under source3/ The server services parser accepts either name and treats them identically. In terms of -dns, my point is that this configuration, turning on or off the DNS server, is the only reason that an administrator should ever need to deal with 'server services'. The defaults work just fine otherwise. The original plan for the parameter was never to have the full list of default services exposed, just to list the changes (eg -dns for no DNS server). Had that been better implemented, we wouldn't be having this discussion, it just would have remained under the hood. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Catalyst IT http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 22:24:15 +1300 Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:> On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 18:40 +0000, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 14:15:57 -0400 > > lingpanda101 via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 11/3/2016 2:03 PM, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 06:56:32 +1300 > > > > Andrew Bartlett via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 13:17 -0400, lingpanda101 via samba > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/3/2016 12:07 PM, Marc Muehlfeld via samba wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bob, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 03.11.2016 um 16:43 schrieb Bob of Donelson Trophy via > > > > > > > samba: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have seen you state this before that "server services" > > > > > > > > line > > > > > > > > within a > > > > > > > > smb.conf file is not necessary on a DC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have to ask, and it may have been asked before but, I > > > > > > > > recently > > > > > > > > install > > > > > > > > from source the v4.5.0 and during provisioning samba > > > > > > > > created > > > > > > > > that "line" > > > > > > > > within the smb.conf file. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand what and why your saying this but, if the > > > > > > > > line is > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > needed then why does provisioning a ADDC create the > > > > > > > > line? > > > > > > > https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/FAQ#Why_I_Do_Not_Have_a_se > > > > > > > rver_ser > > > > > > > vices_parameter_in_My_smb.conf_File.3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/FAQ#Can_I_Disable_Some_of_ > > > > > > > the_serv > > > > > > > er_services_options_in_the_smb.conf_File.3F > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this correct from the wiki? > > > > > > > > > > > > "If you are running Samba 4.2 or later, you can disable the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > samba| internal |winbindd| daemon and switch to the > > > > > > > recommended > > > > > > > winbind| daemon. To switch, set:" > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought winbindd was preferred over winbind? > > > > > It doens't matter. I made them an alias for each other when I > > > > > dropped the internal winbind for 4.2. (I don't like breaking > > > > > config files, and the generated line with all the values > > > > > listed wasn't intentional. It was meant to be printed as > > > > > "server services > > > > > = -dns" or omitted, but some magic got in the way and now we > > > > > are a > > > > > bit stuck. > > > > > > > > > > Andrew Bartlett > > > > > > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > > > Pardon ??? > > > > > > > > The guy was asking about 'winbindd' & 'winbind' and you seem to > > > > be > > > > talking about dns. > > > > > > > > In answer to lingpanda101, the wiki is correct, but could be > > > > worded > > > > better, 'winbind' isn't recommended over 'winbindd'. > > > > > > > > Rowland > > > > > > > > > > Rowland, > > > > > > That's what I meant. It sounded as if winbind was preferred > > > over > > > winbindd. Thanks for the clarification. > > > > > > > I have altered the wiki page, it now says that you can change from > > the > > recommended 'winbindd' to the older 'winbind' > > My point is that there is no longer an internal winbind in any > supported version of samba, only winbindd, the long-standing codebase > currently under source3/ > > The server services parser accepts either name and treats them > identically. > > In terms of -dns, my point is that this configuration, turning on or > off the DNS server, is the only reason that an administrator should > ever need to deal with 'server services'. The defaults work just fine > otherwise. > > The original plan for the parameter was never to have the full list of > default services exposed, just to list the changes (eg -dns for no DNS > server). Had that been better implemented, we wouldn't be having this > discussion, it just would have remained under the hood. > > Andrew Bartlett >Thanks for clarifying that, from what you have said, there is no point in telling people they can change from 'winbindd' to 'winbind', all they are doing is removing a 'd' LOL Rowland