search for: 100514

...0423", "100426", "100427", "100428", "100429", "100430", "100503", "100504", "100505", "100506", "100507", "100510", "100511", "100512", "100513", "100514", "100517", "100518", "100519", "100520", "100521", "100524", "100525", "100526", "100527", "100528", "100531") > l[3:4] [1] "100419" "100420" #result is fin...

...range = 100000-2000000 winbind nss info = rfc2307 instead, getent passwd gives me administrator:*:100500:100512:Administrator:/home/TEST/administrator:/bin/false test:*:101105:100513:Test User:/home/TEST/test:/bin/false krbtgt:*:100502:100513:krbtgt:/home/TEST/krbtgt:/bin/false guest:*:100501:100514:Guest:/home/TEST/guest:/bin/false So the TEST:range is respected now. But User Shell and Home Dir from the UNIX attributes in the AD are still ignored. There's log entries in the AD member server's log.winbindd stating "Added (BUILTIN|BSDMEM|TEST.BUERGER-ENERGIE-BERLIN.DE) ...&quot...

...;I consider revision numbers as only a disastrous > design” http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/100329.html (+some > criticism of the GitHub UI). > - Scott Warren: "find [git] immature, hard to use, and unreliable.” > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-June/100514.html > > About monorepo vs submodules: > > - [multiple people]: need the ability to bisect (right now it’s not ideal > and people are cloning the github monorepo). Both solution allows this, but > some annoyance with submodules were countered with “developers don’t need > to ch...

...esign” http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/100329.html <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/100329.html> (+some criticism of the GitHub UI). - Scott Warren: "find [git] immature, hard to use, and unreliable.” http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-June/100514.html About monorepo vs submodules: - [multiple people]: need the ability to bisect (right now it’s not ideal and people are cloning the github monorepo). Both solution allows this, but some annoyance with submodules were countered with “developers don’t need to checkout the umbrella repo” which d...

Hi Chad, Thanks for your report. Everything seems fine, apart from the battery.date (2052/00/36), which vaguely recall me something... I've added this info to the Testing and trunk driver.list Arnaud -- Please note my new email address: arnaudquette at eaton.com -- Linux / Unix Expert R&D - MGE Office Protection Systems - http://www.mgeops.com Network UPS Tools (NUT) Project Leader -

...swd gives me >> >> administrator:*:100500:100512:Administrator:/home/TEST/administrator:/bin/false >> >> >> >> test:*:101105:100513:Test User:/home/TEST/test:/bin/false >> krbtgt:*:100502:100513:krbtgt:/home/TEST/krbtgt:/bin/false >> guest:*:100501:100514:Guest:/home/TEST/guest:/bin/false >> >> So the TEST:range is respected now. But User Shell and Home Dir >> from the UNIX attributes in the AD are still ignored. >> >> There's log entries in the AD member server's log.winbindd >> stating "Added (B...

...info = rfc2307 > > instead, getent passwd gives me > > administrator:*:100500:100512:Administrator:/home/TEST/administrator:/bin/false > > test:*:101105:100513:Test User:/home/TEST/test:/bin/false > krbtgt:*:100502:100513:krbtgt:/home/TEST/krbtgt:/bin/false > guest:*:100501:100514:Guest:/home/TEST/guest:/bin/false > > So the TEST:range is respected now. But User Shell and Home Dir from > the UNIX attributes in the AD are still ignored. > > There's log entries in the AD member server's log.winbindd stating > "Added (BUILTIN|BSDMEM|TEST.BUERGER...

...> administrator:*:100500:100512:Administrator:/home/TEST/administrator:/bin/false >>> >>> >>> >>> > test:*:101105:100513:Test User:/home/TEST/test:/bin/false >>> krbtgt:*:100502:100513:krbtgt:/home/TEST/krbtgt:/bin/false >>> guest:*:100501:100514:Guest:/home/TEST/guest:/bin/false >>> >>> So the TEST:range is respected now. But User Shell and Home Dir >>> from the UNIX attributes in the AD are still ignored. >>> >>> There's log entries in the AD member server's log.winbindd >>> st...

Hi Justin, Firstly I really appreciate you taking the mantle and pushing this forward! Like Justin B I'll be bowing out after this. I thought it important because I don't believe you'll build consensus in this thread. I think the best that can be hoped for is opposition to give up fighting; advantages are to be had on both sides by different types of user and we've seen that many

Hi all, Please help Ive been wasting days at this... I am not trying to create a PDC, I am not joining an active directory, I am not needing samba schema in my openldap (or do I?), I am not trying to use winbind and idmaps for translations from SID to UID/GID, I just want my samba server which shares linux home directories to authenticate user+password against my existing linux based openldap

Maybe we can hit the pause button on this issue of a survey vs consensus-building. I think it's a distraction from the main issue here, and it makes it harder for everyone else to participate in the thread. That said, I really do think that perspectives like Justin B's below are important. That is, if people have a problem with the monorepo, it is useful they can join the thread and say