similar to: samba-ad-dc from debian backports fails to start with /usr/sbin/samba missing

04.07.2024 21:27, Paul Leiber via samba wrote: > Dear Samba list, > > I have a Samba instance running as an ad-dc on debian bullseye. Some time ago, I changed the standard installation to backports with > > apt -t bullseye-backports install samba > > After a recent update, samba-ad-dc service didn't start anymore. The journal gave the following hint: > > Jul 04

Am 04.07.2024 um 21:00 schrieb Rowland Penny via samba: > On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 20:27:37 +0200 > Paul Leiber via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> Dear Samba list, >> >> I have a Samba instance running as an ad-dc on debian bullseye. > > I suggest you upgrade, bullseye goes EOL in three weeks. Aww, my system is already on bookworm, not on bullseye.

Am 05.07.2024 um 07:55 schrieb Michael Tokarev: > 04.07.2024 21:27, Paul Leiber via samba wrote: >> Dear Samba list, >> >> I have a Samba instance running as an ad-dc on debian bullseye. Some >> time ago, I changed the standard installation to backports with >> >> apt -t bullseye-backports install samba >> >> After a recent update, samba-ad-dc

On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 20:27:37 +0200 Paul Leiber via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Dear Samba list, > > I have a Samba instance running as an ad-dc on debian bullseye. I suggest you upgrade, bullseye goes EOL in three weeks. > Some > time ago, I changed the standard installation to backports with > > apt -t bullseye-backports install samba I normally

Michael, Maybe I can answer why so few are seeing the NEWS entries you created.? I checked all my Debian systems, and only one has apt-listchanges installed.? The systems were all done via a netinstall .iso.? I don't recall installing apt-listchanges on the one system, but I must have somewhere in time.? So, for any other individuals who installed the OS as I did, there is no NEWS

Hello mjt, I can only speak for myself: For bigger upgrades (e. g. samba 4.19 -> 4.20) Im manually updating a few servers and check if everything works. For smaller updates (e. g. 4.20.1 -> 4.20.2) Im using saltstack to automate updating the servers. It suppresses these messages and this is fine in 99% of all cases because a minor update is not supposed to change much (e. g. split a

On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 3:55?AM Michael Tokarev via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: ... > Please don't suppress *NEWS* entries. ... As someone that was bitten by this change I have to admit I've never seen these NEWS entries, or never realized I had. My Debian servers are cli only (no X or Wayland). Is this something that gets automatically displayed when you do an

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 6:46?AM Michael Tokarev <mjt at tls.msk.ru> wrote: ... > I think the main ingredient here is to have apt-listchanges package > installed (which, while part of standard install, is optional). ... I've always installed using the netinstall.iso which does not install that package. Will add it from now on. Thank you, Chris

On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 21:12 +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: > Hi! > > Building current samba on debian bullseye with > > ?? ./configure --enable-cephfs > > results in the following output: > > Checking for header cephfs/libcephfs.h????????????? : yes > Checking for library cephfs???????????????????????? : yes > Checking for ceph_statx in

07.07.2024 16:05, Sonic via samba wrote: > On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 3:55?AM Michael Tokarev via samba > <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > ... >> Please don't suppress *NEWS* entries. > ... > > As someone that was bitten by this change I have to admit I've never > seen these NEWS entries, or never realized I had. My Debian servers > are cli only (no X or

08.07.2024 17:18, Sonic wrote: > On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 6:46?AM Michael Tokarev <mjt at tls.msk.ru> wrote: > ... >> I think the main ingredient here is to have apt-listchanges package >> installed (which, while part of standard install, is optional). > ... > > I've always installed using the netinstall.iso which does not install > that package. Will add it

[Not including ellerhold.de address since the MXes in question does not accept connections form my part of the world] 05.07.2024 09:58, Matthias K?hne | Ellerhold Aktiengesellschaft via samba wrote: > Hello mjt, > > I can only speak for myself: > > For bigger upgrades (e. g. samba 4.19 -> 4.20) Im manually updating a > few servers and check if everything works. > >

With the new signature file I was able to verify, but there was still a bad signature: "gpg: key 0x0FC3042E345AD05D: 1 bad signature" which I highlighted below. Didn't seem to be a problem, but thought I'd point it out. I'd be glad to do additional tests if you'd like. $ gpg --list-keys /home/wink/.gnupg/pubring.kbx ----------------------------- pub

Am 07.06.24 um 08:45 schrieb Michael Tokarev: > Please check version of samba-ad-dc package, - is it the same as other > samba package versions? that package isn't installed according to "apt-cache policy" ! Seems it got lost while upgrading. > Did samba-ad-dc start at all? seemed like, but was very fast (so did nothing, as it seems) Did "apt install

In the smbstatus output, "Locked files" section, there's a list of locked files (effectively opened files, since windows always locks a file which it opens) and corresponding pid of smbd process. How to map this information to user ID? Thanks, /mjt -- GPG Key transition (from rsa2048 to rsa4096) since 2024-04-24. New key: rsa4096/61AD3D98ECDF2C8E 9D8B E14E 3F2A 9DD7 9199 28F1

I have several devices, mostly amd64 and armhf architectures, all of which updated samba to 4.17.6 without any problems. But one which is armel architecture failed to update; instead I get the following when I try to update: root at goflex:~# samba -V Version 4.17.5-Debian root at goflex:~# apt update Hit:1 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian bullseye InRelease Get:2 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian

I'm on an Arch Linux system: $ uname -a Linux wink-desktop 5.0.4-arch1-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat Mar 23 21:00:33 UTC 2019 x86_64 GNU/Linux My gpg version is: $ gpg --version gpg (GnuPG) 2.2.15 libgcrypt 1.8.4 Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc. License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later < https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> This is free software: you are free to change and

I run 2 DCs at a site, Debian 12.5, so far samba-4.19.6 from backports. Today I upgraded one of them, this brought samba-4.20.1 Now on this one DC stuff like "wbinfo -g" fails: # wbinfo -g could not obtain winbind interface details: WBC_ERR_WINBIND_NOT_AVAILABLE could not obtain winbind domain name! failed to call wbcListGroups: WBC_ERR_WINBIND_NOT_AVAILABLE Error looking up domain

On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 08:50:11 +0200 "Stefan G. Weichinger via samba" <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > on the problematic DC "systemctl status" doesn't even show > "samba-ad-dc". > > Although: > > # systemctl status samba-ad-dc.service > ? samba-ad-dc.service - LSB: Samba daemons for the AD DC > Loaded: loaded

On 13.06.2024 20:33, Peter Milesson via samba wrote: > > > On 13.06.2024 17:21, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 16:26:17 +0200 >> Peter Milesson via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> The last log record from journalctl -xeu winbind directly after >>> winbind startup is: