similar to: Samba 4.2.0rc4 fails to start up

> 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

>> 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. >>>>

> 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

> 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 snprintf or one from Solaris ? Can > > > you try and track down why it's returning

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; }

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

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 documentation says that this in not necessary as we have found it to be necessary. We are setting 'workgroup =

Adding a section of a debug level 5 log at the end that looks like it might have some usefull information. > 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

> 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 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 > > > > >

> 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 =

> On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 12:14:44 -0400 (EDT) > schulz at adi.com (Thomas Schulz) wrote: > > > > On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 10:14:32 -0400 (EDT) > > > Thomas Schulz via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > > > > > We are running Samba 4.4.6 as a file server. > > > > In the logs for a few client machines I see entries such as: >

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 Fri, 30 Sep 2016 12:14:44 -0400 (EDT) >> schulz at adi.com (Thomas Schulz) wrote: >> >>>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 10:14:32 -0400 (EDT) >>>> Thomas Schulz via samba &lt;samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> We are running Samba 4.4.6 as a file server. >>>>> In the logs for a few client machines I

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" \ >

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

> On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 10:14:32 -0400 (EDT) > Thomas Schulz via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > We are running Samba 4.4.6 as a file server. > > In the logs for a few client machines I see entries such as: > > > > [2016/09/29 22:36:58.862575, 0] > > ../source3/param/loadparm.c:4402(widelinks_warning) > > Share 'IPC$'

> On 26/10/15 18:26, Thomas Schulz wrote: > > This may not be a Samba problem, but perhaps people here know the answer. > > > > We are installing some Windows 8.1 Pro computers. The servers running Samba > > 4.2.19 and 4.3.0 are not showing up in the Network display. Our domain > > controller is also not showing up. The Windows 7 computers are showing up. > >