On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 16:30:00 +0100 Reindl Harald via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:> > > that's nitpicking - a wroking setup works as i expect :-)No, its not nitpicking, the OP has an AD DC that is working as recommended, but the OP wants to also use it as a fileserver, so he needs to configure it a bit more. The only problem he really has is, he used the wrong version of Samba.> > when working without packaging which would remove orphaned files > proper start from scratch and "rm -rf" is better and in case of a > retry i would start with a rpm-spec with %files pointing > to /usr/local/samba/ because that makes upgrades / downgrades in the > future cleaner instead a "make install"You can do what you like, but running 'make install' is just as easy as downloading the latest Samba tarball, compiling it into an RPM and then installing that RPM.> missed that - but must be the case because he refers to RHEL7/CentOS7 > which ships with 4.4.4 and not 4.1.x - anyways, the tree brelow the > install prefix is the same and the main part of the coniguration > lives below the lib folder whereever it is located and so the point > was just remove the configs itself won't reset completlyYou, being (by the sound of it) a Red-Hat user, will very well know that you cannot create an AD DC with Red-Hat packages yet, so, unless you configure it differently, Samba puts everything into /usr/local/samba Rowland
Am 05.03.2017 um 16:51 schrieb Rowland Penny via samba:> On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 16:30:00 +0100 > Reindl Harald via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >> when working without packaging which would remove orphaned files >> proper start from scratch and "rm -rf" is better and in case of a >> retry i would start with a rpm-spec with %files pointing >> to /usr/local/samba/ because that makes upgrades / downgrades in the >> future cleaner instead a "make install" > > You can do what you like, but running 'make install' is just as easy as > downloading the latest Samba tarball, compiling it into an RPM and then > installing that RPMthe install yes longtime maintainment for sure no, because the next "make install" won't remove orphaned files after major upgrades, a package will i was there with mysql for years and randomly other software linking against it's libraries stopped to build until i manually deleted every mysql related file and built it again never saw such issue on package-only systems and since i have here 30 machines running Fedora 25 hich where installed in 2008 with Fedora 9 i have some expierience with long-time maintainance of a server system
>> missed that - but must be the case because he refers to RHEL7/CentOS7 >> which ships with 4.4.4 and not 4.1.x - anyways, the tree brelow the >> install prefix is the same and the main part of the coniguration >> lives below the lib folder whereever it is located and so the point >> was just remove the configs itself won't reset completly>You, being (by the sound of it) a Red-Hat user, will very well know >that you cannot create an AD DC with Red-Hat packages yet, so, unless >you configure it differently, Samba puts everything into >/usr/local/samba>RowlandPersonally I find it an advantage of Samba living in /usr/local as it emphasizes that this Samba install is not created from packages and it represents it's own biotope because all relevant folders are in that one folder. BC
Am 06.03.2017 um 14:56 schrieb Bart Coninckx via samba:>>> missed that - but must be the case because he refers to RHEL7/CentOS7 >>> which ships with 4.4.4 and not 4.1.x - anyways, the tree brelow the >>> install prefix is the same and the main part of the coniguration >>> lives below the lib folder whereever it is located and so the point >>> was just remove the configs itself won't reset completly > >> You, being (by the sound of it) a Red-Hat user, will very well know >> that you cannot create an AD DC with Red-Hat packages yet, so, unless >> you configure it differently, Samba puts everything into >> /usr/local/samba > > Personally I find it an advantage of Samba living in /usr/local as it emphasizes that this Samba install is not created from packages and it represents it's own biotope because all relevant folders are in that one folder.well, there is nothing different when you use rpmbuild and chose the prefix you want besides that: * cleanup of orphan files * simpe upgarde/downgrade because you have your prebuild .rpm files * no need of devel-packages / compilers on the target machine * no need to --exclude=/usr/local/smaba/var/lib/samba fpr rsync if you build on a different machine because rpm don't touch files which it didn't create * easy re-use on serveral machines including a testing-one the only real difference is that "make install" goes into the buildfolder - i don't see any advantage in "as it emphasizes that this Samba install is not created from packages" since for a decade now i override postfix, mysql, httpd, apr, php and so on on Fedora with self built packages and a higher epoch in the rpm-spec so that the own repos win