similar to: 4.21-rc: new symbols form appeared

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "4.21-rc: new symbols form appeared"

2024 Jul 30
1
4.21-rc: ldb_version.h is missing
When building libldb as public library, its install target does not install ldb_version.h header file, which is included from ldb.h, so the resulting header files are unusable. Thanks, /mjt -- GPG Key transition (from rsa2048 to rsa4096) since 2024-04-24. New key: rsa4096/61AD3D98ECDF2C8E 9D8B E14E 3F2A 9DD7 9199 28F1 61AD 3D98 ECDF 2C8E Old key: rsa2048/457CE0A0804465C5 6EE1 95D1 886E 8FFB
2024 Aug 03
1
4.21-rc: ldb_version.h is missing
31.07.2024 08:30, Douglas Bagnall via samba ?????: > On 30/07/24 22:20, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> When building libldb as public library, its install target does not >> install ldb_version.h header file, which is included from ldb.h, so >> the resulting header files are unusable. > > It may be that 625fb48326ec62a33ce0abdbfb0f6f3d33d7cc64 accidentally reversed
2024 Jul 31
1
4.21-rc: new symbols form appeared
On 30/07/24 9:00 pm, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: > I'm trying to build 4.21-rc packages for debian, and noticed > that a new form of version info symbol appeared (only tried > tdb for now).? In addition to usual > > ?TDB.1.4.11 at TDB.1_4.11 > > symbol, it now also adds > > ?TDB_1_4_11 at TDB_1_4_11 > > (with dots replaced with underscores), but for
2024 Jul 31
1
4.21-rc: new symbols form appeared
On 31/07/24 17:07, Jo Sutton wrote: > On 30/07/24 9:00 pm, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> I'm trying to build 4.21-rc packages for debian, and noticed >> that a new form of version info symbol appeared (only tried >> tdb for now).? In addition to usual >> >> ??TDB.1.4.11 at TDB.1_4.11 >> >> symbol, it now also adds >> >>
2024 Jun 07
1
smbstatus: who opened the file?
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
2024 May 31
1
maximum samba AD functional level?
Hi! In the samba wiki there's this page: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Raising_the_Functional_Levels which basically says that the maximum supported functional level is 2008_R2, and that 2012 (and 2012_R2) are included but not supported. This page mentions maximum samba version 4.4 and has been modified in 2017 (besides some formatting changes). What's the current situation? Also,
2024 Jun 07
1
missing msdfs referrals from samba directory listing: wrong order in smbd_dirptr_get_entry()?
06.06.2024 19:33, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: > For quite some time I'm trying to find what's going on with MSDFS referrals. > Samba version is 4.19.6. .. > However, when opening the directory in question from client, this name is not > shown in the listing.? Samba skips this name from the listing when looping over > readdir entries: So, the same config just works in
2024 Jun 07
1
DC upgraded to 4.20.1 - issues
07.06.2024 09:39, Stefan G. Weichinger via samba wrote: > 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
2024 Jun 07
2
4.20: case (in)sensitive is broken
Hi! This is a heads-up for now, more debugging to follow. I had to downgrade samba from 4.20.1 to 4.19.6 because 4.20 broke case insensitive file access entirely. Only exact case filename works, no matter which value is set in "case sensitive" parameter. In 4.19, things works again. /mjt -- GPG Key transition (from rsa2048 to rsa4096) since 2024-04-24. New key:
2024 Jun 07
1
4.20: case (in)sensitive is broken
07.06.2024 19:27, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 04:59:29PM +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> It boils down to having wide links = yes (and unix extensions = no). > > Wide links is problematic. I'd love to just remove it :-). I don't see anything problematic in wide links. I'd say it's samba who views it as problematic (just like in a
2024 Jun 10
0
mjt debian/ubuntu samba builds update
Hi! I just uploaded binaries of samba versions 4.19.7-1 and 4.20.1-5 for ubuntu and debian to the usual location, http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/packages/samba/ . There are a few changes in there. First, I changed debian release suffix to be like: 4.20.1+dfsg-5~mjt-deb11 4.20.1+dfsg-5~mjt-ubt24 This should not change anything, just make it easier to track if neded, hopefully. And for 4.20
2024 Jun 07
1
missing msdfs referrals from samba directory listing: wrong order in smbd_dirptr_get_entry()?
07.06.2024 10:13, Kees van Vloten via samba wrote: > There is a little difference with your config: I am not using symlinks in the filesystem but 'msdfs proxy' in smb.conf.? Not sure if that can be > related to your finding? msdfs proxy is not affected in this context. It is the access to msdfs-symlink *files* which broke. Thanks, /mjt -- GPG Key transition (from rsa2048 to
2024 Jun 20
1
leaving a domain?
20.06.2024 15:16, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:07:11 +0300 > Michael Tokarev via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> 20.06.2024 15:03, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> Still, it'd be nice if samba-tool domain leave displayed some more >> appropriate error message, and no insecure-password-on-command-line >> warning
2024 Jun 20
1
leaving a domain?
20.06.2024 17:01, Ralph Boehme wrote: > On 6/20/24 2:03 PM, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> How to remove this machine from a domain? > net ads leave ... Yeah, I tried that one right after `samba-tool domain leave` - it complains there's no way to leave a domain if joined as a DC. I *guess* this is the error `samba-tool domain leave` faces too, just without proper error
2024 Jul 08
1
samba-ad-dc from debian backports fails to start with /usr/sbin/samba missing
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
2024 Jul 08
2
samba-ad-dc from debian backports fails to start with /usr/sbin/samba missing
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
2024 Jul 30
1
ceph is disabled even if explicitly asked to be enabled
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 cephfs : ok Checking for ceph_openat in cephfs : not found Ceph support disabled due to
2024 Jun 11
1
4.20: case (in)sensitive is broken
10.06.2024 20:55, Jeremy Allison via samba wrote: > Here is the fix. Not sure if it breaks anything else (yet) :-). Wow. With the additional info from my previous email in mind, it looks like there's something else going on here. Namely, why the issue happens only if unix extensions is *excplicitly* turned off, while doesn't happen when it is turned off implicitly due to wide links?
2024 Jun 07
1
missing msdfs referrals from samba directory listing: wrong order in smbd_dirptr_get_entry()?
07.06.2024 07:59, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 07.06.2024 07:54, Jeremy Allison wrote: >>> msdfs is broken in 4.19.? It worked fine in 4.18. > > This is not entirely true. Nope. Things are more interesting than that. I've a 4.19 installation where msdfs links works both in listing and when specified directly. There are 2 other installations of 4.19 where msdfs links
2024 May 02
1
winbind: does it actually depend on nmbd? and network-online?
Hi! In packaging/systemd/winbind.service, there's this ordering: After=network.target nmb.service Does winbind really need nmbd running? Another interesting dependency here. nmb.service (in the same directory) has Wants=network-online.target After=network.target network-online.target Note nmbd needs network to be online. While winbind only needs network to be up. If winbind requires