> bullshit "smb" is the shortname for "samba"In general, yes. But the daemon responsible for the AD DC is named 'samba'.> 'smb.conf' and 'samba.conf' is far away from *directly identifiable*See above.> the whole topic starts with idiocity by "How about building two > different samba packages (on a distribution such as debian)" given that > the distribution-layer is the least relevantCalm down! Why being that aggressive? We are not talking life and dead subjects here!