similar to: Samba-LDAP PDC - Disjoint uids required for different ou's?

I am confused as with samba-tool it does practically everything and all the default methods of M$ AD are covered. For some reason OU's seem to be missing I know OU's are very Group policy orientated but also they are simply Organisational Units. The ability to list, create and delete OU's seems to be omitted. Also when you add a user the destination OU parameter is missing. Is this

Hello, Is there any way I can use the gregexpr functions (or a different function) in a manner that will also return overlapping (i.e. non disjoint) regular expressions? For instance, when running gregexpr("AAA","AAAAAA"), I get two matches, one at position 1 and one at position 4. I'd like to receive 4 matches at positions 1, 2, 3 and 4. Thanks, Schraga

Dear All: We have been experiencing networking issues so I don't know if this got through; I can't see it in the archive. My sincere apologies if this appears twice. I may have found an unusual bug and am posting here to see if anyone can reproduce it on their system. First of all, sessionInfo(): > sessionInfo() R version 2.7.1 (2008-06-23) i386-apple-darwin8.10.1 locale:

Hi Lang, While working on improving the debug dumps of the PBQP graphs, I found out that we can have some edges between nodes which belong to totally disjoint register classes (for example, on AArch64, this would be an int and a floating point register). Although it is true those 2 registers interferes, in the sense they are alive at the same time, they never have any physical interference,

I've been noticing that group policies in OU's haven't been working for me. So far I've installed samba 4.1.4 on a fresh install of FreeBSD 10.0 with UFS + acls turned on with the only shares being sysvol, and netlogon. I can get Windows 7 machines to take policies that are in the root of my domain. If I create an OU move a computer or user to that OU and move the policy to that

Hi all I have a samba 3.0.21c with OpenLDAP 2.3.19 , as PDC where almost 200 Workstations in the domain, most of my workstations are windows xp, & 2000 professional. but sometimes some of the system get disjoint from the domain, if we do ipconfig/flushdns and ipconfig/registerdns and wait for 5 min, and reboot and login, it logs on, ie it doesn't complain that computer is not in the

Hi all, I have a configuration for a samba file server that I’m trying to get properly implemented. The issue isn’t with the shares but is with the user and groups lookups. The server resides in a nested container such as: >> samdom.com          >> Users_And_Computers                   >> CA_LOCATION_ON                         >> Servers

My organization has several next cloud instances running with users in different ou's without any issue On Wed., Nov. 4, 2020, 2:39 a.m. L.P.H. van Belle via samba, < samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > The problem with using OU's, is that a user can only be in one OU, so > > what if the user needs to be in more than one ? > > > > I would rely on group

I am trying to implement the following structure in OpenLDAP for a backend to Samba 3: / ou=People /ou=Internal-----<- ou=Groups dc=btd,dc=com ---< \ ou=Computers \ou=External I have been able to authenticate users but they are only able to access shares based on their primary group. I am wondering if

I'm working on a backend for a target with multiple functional units, each with a dedicated register file. Several instructions can operate on any one of the functional units. For example there is an add instruction on the A unit that adds two A registers, and another on the D unit that adds two D registers, but neither can use the other's registers. From a selection point of view either

I have been looking through the LLVM documentation, and I have decided that I would be interested in producing a functional front-end for it, if only to determine how applicable the optimizations that it already performs are to such a language. However, I have run into one obstacle that would make it difficult to write many of the things I would like to do. Is there a way to represent a

Hi Clemens, On 02/02/12 14:25, Clemens Hammacher wrote: > On 2/2/12 1:51 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: ... >> what do you mean by "copied over to the main module"? If you want to add >> additional IR to the main module then you should link it in using the linker. > > I think that the linker would indeed be able to remap the types correctly, but > the main obstacle here

Hi , I need to use ntlm_auth across two different AD domains and their is no trust between the 2 domains. I followed the post http://samba-multiple-domains.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/how-to-join-one-linux-box-to-two.html <https://deref-mail.com/mail/client/44YIgEylY9w/dereferrer/?redirectUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsamba-multiple-domains.blogspot.co.uk%2F2010%2F03%2Fhow-to-join-one-linux-box-to-two.html>

Hi Clemens, On 02/02/12 13:30, Clemens Hammacher wrote: > Hi Chris, > thanks for your answer! > > On 2/2/12 1:15 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> The linker has to solve the exact same problem (read multiple .bc files and >> unify types across them). This is the impetus behind TypeMapTy in >> lib/Linker/LinkModules.cpp. You'll probably need to do something like that.

On Jan 31, 2012, at 6:16 AM, Clemens Hammacher wrote: > This is because each module contains its own type table with all the types used in that module. When reading in the corresponding bitcode, the BitcodeReader explicitly calls StructType::create, without looking up in the context whether an equivalent type (even with the same name) already exists. > So I think that llvm is behaving

Am 04.10.2016 um 17:05 schrieb Rowland Penny via samba: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:09:40 +0200 > Achim Gottinger via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> >> Am 04.10.2016 um 15:43 schrieb Rowland Penny via samba: >>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 15:16:17 +0200 >>> Achim Gottinger via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >>> >>>>

On 2/2/12 2:32 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > On 02/02/12 14:25, Clemens Hammacher wrote: >> On 2/2/12 1:51 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > ... >>> what do you mean by "copied over to the main module"? If you want to add >>> additional IR to the main module then you should link it in using the >>> linker. >> >> I think that the linker would indeed

On 2/2/12 1:51 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > On 02/02/12 13:30, Clemens Hammacher wrote: >> On 2/2/12 1:15 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> I have to ask: why are you writing these modules out as separate bc files? >> >> I knew that someone would ask that ;) >> We need to have separate modules during runtime. One of them contains the code >> that is actually JIT

Hi Chris, thanks for your answer! On 2/2/12 1:15 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > The linker has to solve the exact same problem (read multiple .bc files and unify types across them). This is the impetus behind TypeMapTy in lib/Linker/LinkModules.cpp. You'll probably need to do something like that. I already looked into that. The linker is using the GlobalValues of both modules to identify

Dear community, we are currently facing a problem related to the new type system in llvm 3.0. Our setting is the following: We have two or more modules, all in the same LLVMContext. They are sharing some types, meaning that for example functions in different modules are referencing the same (meaning pointer identical) type. Now we write the different modules to the disk, and read them back