Your message dated Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:47:28 +0300
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#1099755: samba: samba recommends samba-ad-dc, why?
has caused the Debian Bug report #1099755,
regarding samba: samba recommends samba-ad-dc, why?
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1099755: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1099755
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: samba
Version: 2:4.22.0+dfsg-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
we noticed that a simple "apt install samba" now also installs
samba-ad-dc which pulls in all sorts of other dependencies like
winbind, libpam-winbind, libnss-winbind, and others, which weren't
there "before", and are not needed for an SMB file server.
This was introduced in 2:4.21.1+dfsg-2:
samba (2:4.21.1+dfsg-2) unstable; urgency=medium
* d/control: add Recommends: samba-ad-dc for samba for now
to avoid breaking existing installs
* d/samba.postrm: stop unmasking of samba-ad-dc
(it is already done in postinst)
* d/samba.postinst,d/samba.maintscripts: remove samba-ad-dc
startup files and stop the service (Closes: #1085617)
-- Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> Fri, 25 Oct 2024 12:30:52 +0300
There used to be a Recommends in bin:samba for samba-ad-provision, but
that was dropped in 2:4.20.1+dfsg-2:
samba (2:4.20.1+dfsg-2) unstable; urgency=medium
* move many files from samba package to samba-ad-dc package.
From now on, samba-ad-dc isn't just a meta-package, it is actually
needed for AD-DC functionality. If you run AD-DC, please ensure
that samba-ad-dc package is installed (it is not recommended by samba)
Closes: #1051770
...
* d/control: samba: no need to recommend samba-ad-provision
Why is bin:samba recommending bin:samba-ad-dc? That will make every
samba install, even simple file servers, have files and services for
ad-dc?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
07.03.2025 19:37, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
This was introduced in 2:4.21.1+dfsg-2:
samba (2:4.21.1+dfsg-2) unstable; urgency=medium
* d/control: add Recommends: samba-ad-dc for samba for now
to avoid breaking existing installs
Why is bin:samba recommending bin:samba-ad-dc? That will make every
samba install, even simple file servers, have files and services for
ad-dc?
You've your answer. It is done in order to avoid breaking existing
setups on upgrade to trixie (or to the corresponding ubuntu release).
With this Recommends, upgrade will install samba-ad-dc package. And for
setups running an ad-dc, this will do the right thing. While for setups
without ad-dc, this does not matter, it's just an extra unused package
which can be removed.
Without the Recommends, samba-ad-dc will not be installed during upgrade,
so setups running an ad-dc will have to find out why their DC broke the
painful way, complain, and install the missing samba-ad-dc.
As for samba-ad-provision, - in most obvious cases, when you actually hit
a case when you need a file from there, you'll have a warning telling you
to install the missing package. And this doesn't happen during system
startup (unattended), but only during to the regular package usage, when
doing things like creating a new domain or upgrading an existing one, -
things like that. samba-ad-provision is not needed for regular domain
operations, so no breakage is done if it's missing.
/mjt
--- End Message ---
