On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 01:56:02AM -0000, Darrell May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Greg Zartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > Is it required by e-smith/SME 5.0 for samba to be broken up like this. > > Currently, YES. This is the default SME5 implementation that is built > into their iso. We need to continue to match their iso implementation to > keep a clean upgrade path.
Yes and no, as long as the upgraded RPMs remove anything which shouldn't be there after the upgrade. > > If Samba is to be broken up into four pieces, do we need to be > > installing samba-swat-2.2.2-1.i386.rpm? > > Nope, this is for developers only. I'm sure SWAT will get dropped from > the 'supported' blade install. Agreed. > [...] > Yup looks nice. Don't know if we need to get so fancy though. Even if > those fragments are in by default they don't effect a non-domain smb.conf > installation. I welcome comments on this. Should we implement the perl > scripted fragments Greg has provided or go plain? I believe we need to have the guards (I was going to add them before the next run of e-smith-samba). We don't want to provide network resources such as logon shares unless we are acting as domain master. It is really ugly if the SME Server provides a logon share if there is an existing NT server also providing one. Gordon -- Gordon Rowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] VP Engineering Network Server Solutions Group http://www.e-smith.com Mitel Networks Corporation http://www.mitel.com -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
