similar to: Samba 4.2.0rc4 fails to start up

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:18:27PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:04:03AM -0500, Thomas Schulz wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:13:42AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:59:21PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > > > > Ah ok - I expected as much. snprintf seems to be > > > > >

I added debuging as follows: /* no O_EXCL, existence check is via the fcntl lock */ lockfile_fd = open(lockfile_name.buf, O_NONBLOCK|O_CREAT|O_WRONLY, 0644); if (lockfile_fd == -1) { ret = errno; DEBUG(1, ("%s: open failed: %s\n", __func__, strerror(errno))); return ret; }

Changes: * Removed utimes() posix hack since scp.c moved to utimes() * Fixed waitpid() to be more proper. It was driving me nuts. * Made setsid() a #define in next-posix.h * Removed WCOREDUMP() from next-posix.h since we really don't support it and now #ifdef .. #else .. #endif around the single place it was used. * Fixed typecasting issue in sshd.c with sizeof() returning "long

I'm wonder if anyone happens to have a simplier (slower) version of bsd-snprintf.c. It seems NeXT 3.3 (unsure about 4.2) is missing mprotect(). If I could get something to replace that for a while and fix some of theses utmp in login.c issues I may have a rough port NeXT to black hardware.=) Thanks

>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:04:03AM -0500, Thomas Schulz wrote: >>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:13:42AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: >>>> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:59:21PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: >>>> > > Ah ok - I expected as much. snprintf seems to be >>>> > > broken in that it's returning -1. >>>>

I am trying to see if Samba 4.2.0rc4 will run on a Solaris 10 i386 system. After getting it to build, startup fails. Starting it up as smbd -i -d 10 The output indicates that everything is starting normally until the following is output: messaging_dgm_lockfile_create: ftruncate failed: Invalid argument messaging_dgm_init: messaging_dgm_create_lockfile failed: Invalid argument messaging_dgm_init

I am following the examples in chapter 2 of "Rails 3 in Action" and for some reason I have to specify the full path + file name to get my specs to run. The book and rspec docs led me to believe that I should be able to just type ''rspec'' and rspec would find any spec files in a directory called spec. I even tried adding a .rspec file with "--default_path spec"

I think you have a syntactical error on the line thats throwing the error, you state: > j.even?should be true #throws an error on j == 2, j == 4 should this line not read as: j.even?.should be true -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Hello, would it be possible to update config.sub and config.guess to the latest versions (or at least version from automake-1.13.1) in order to support new architectures based on the ARM 64 bit CPU? Patch: http://plautrba.fedorapeople.org/openssh/openssh-latest-config.sub-config.guess.patch Related Fedora bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=926284 Thanks, Petr

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 With this change built ok. But patch must be quite different on my platform (see attached) for portable version. And, of course, after autoreconf run. 02.08.2016 10:55, Darren Tucker ?????: > --- a/configure.ac > +++ b/configure.ac > @@ -754,6 +754,9 @@ main() { if (NSVersionOfRunTimeLibrary("System") >= (60 << 16))

I am not quite certain where to report this, so I will start here. I am trying to do a test build of Samba 4.2.0rc4 on a Solaris 10 i386 machine. I ran configure as follows: #! /bin/sh CFLAGS="-O3 -I/opt/local/include" \ LDFLAGS="-R/opt/local/samba4/lib:/opt/local/samba4/lib/private:/opt/local/lib \ -L/opt/local/lib -liconv -lintl" \ ./configure

Should I file a bug at bugzilla.samba.org for problems with a release candidate? > I am not quite certain where to report this, so I will start here. > I am trying to do a test build of Samba 4.2.0rc4 on a Solaris 10 i386 > machine. I ran configure as follows: > > #! /bin/sh > CFLAGS="-O3 -I/opt/local/include" \ >

> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:22:15PM -0500, Thomas Schulz wrote: > > Checking for C99 vsnprintf : not found > > Can you just hand-compile lib/replace/test/snprintf.c and > paste its output? Maybe take a closer look why it fails? > > That's the test we use to check whether we have to replace > snprintf. > > Volker Perhaps what was

> Submitted bug 11098. Debug level 5 logs are attached to the bug along > with the smb.conf file used. > > I am assuming that the problem is with the Wondows 2000 DC because I > assume that 4.2.0rc4 would not have been made available if it could > not authenticate against any domain controller. > > For us this is a fatal bug. > > > This problem shows up on both

> On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 11:44 -0500, Thomas Schulz wrote: > > This problem shows up on both Linux and Solaris. I am going to show > > the logs from a Fedora 2.6.25-14.fc9.i686 machine. > > > > We are using 'security = domain' with a Windows 2000 domain controller. > > We are setting 'password server = starfish2' dispite the fact that the > >

> > On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 11:44 -0500, Thomas Schulz wrote: > > > This problem shows up on both Linux and Solaris. I am going to show > > > the logs from a Fedora 2.6.25-14.fc9.i686 machine. > > > > > > We are using 'security = domain' with a Windows 2000 domain controller. > > > We are setting 'password server = starfish2'

>>> On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 11:44 -0500, Thomas Schulz wrote: >>>> This problem shows up on both Linux and Solaris. I am going to show >>>> the logs from a Fedora 2.6.25-14.fc9.i686 machine. >>>> >>>> We are using 'security = domain' with a Windows 2000 domain controller. >>>> We are setting 'password server =

On Mon, 2020-11-09 at 14:43 +1030, O'Connor, Daniel wrote: > > Good idea. > First step is building Samba from source which is not a fun > experience on FreeBSD :( We do honestly want to make this easier. Now of course that doesn't help for a historical bisect, but we are open to and encourage up- streaming of patches from ports. (We also ask that patches we reject - this

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:04:03AM -0500, Thomas Schulz wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:13:42AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:59:21PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > > > Ah ok - I expected as much. snprintf seems to be > > > > broken in that it's returning -1. > > > > > > > > Is this our

> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:22:15PM -0500, Thomas Schulz wrote: > > Checking for C99 vsnprintf : not found > > Can you just hand-compile lib/replace/test/snprintf.c and > paste its output? Maybe take a closer look why it fails? > > That's the test we use to check whether we have to replace > snprintf. > > Volker I went ahead and hand