On 06/11/2016 11:30 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
Any particular reason to intentionally remove this from samba? I don't
have timings available, but I suspect it isn't much different (all of the
libs have to be built anyway). Though installed disk space is larger, it
doesn't affect use of standalone servers/clients. I suppose it doesn't
matter much, just omit the switch. We weren't previously excluding
this in
systemd.
Don't know for sure. I suspect that most users don't build samba to be
a domain controller. It requires a reasonable amount of configuration
that we don't cover (but do reference). Using the switch just removes
some bloat.
I do not have any windows systems to test so I generally don't build
samba. If you want to remove the switch, go ahead, but I think it
should be there by default. Note that that there is a ticket open for a
new version of samba.
-- Bruce
After thinking about it a bit, I'll put it back in systemd. I'm going to
eventually write an AD article in our wiki, but that's near the end of
an increasingly long list of tasks. Besides, the one I wrote for Arch is
close enough to LFS that it's adaptation is obvious enough if you are an
LFSer. If the update ticket is not taken by the time I'm done with
systemd merge (hopefully only a few more hours, working through the
Gnome deps in x/lib now, replacing recommended (in systemd) with a
parenthetical for ones listed as optional in trunk, I'll update it on
next build.
--DJ
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
