Generally back porting like this unless its a major security thing is not done
to stable.
differences to the 6.0-stable from current
--with-ntvfs-fileserver \
--without-gpgme
LDB_V = 1.1.27
TEVENT_V = 0.9.29
vs
LDB_V = 1.1.26
TEVENT_V = 0.9.28
The trivial DB and the Tevent libs are also slightly different versions.
https://www.samba.org/samba/history/samba-4.4.6.html
* BUG 12028: vfs_acl_xattr: Objects without NT ACL xattr.
* BUG 12105: async_req: Make async_connect_send() "reentrant".
* BUG 12177: vfs_acl_common: Fix unexpected synthesized default ACL from
vfs_acl_xattr.
* BUG 12181: vfs_acl_xattr|tdb: Enforced settings when
"ignore system acls = yes".
* BUG 11991: build: Build less of Samba when building
'--without-ntvfs-fileserver'.
Make me wonder if there is more breakage in samba itself. Hmm wonder if
updating stable to 4.4.9 would help?
Ian McWilliam
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of
[email protected] [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, 6 February 2017 3:56 PM
To: Vijay Sankar
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: samba4 and ACL's
Here are my testing results.
OpenBSD 5.9 - BASE (Samba 4.1): Works as expected with ntvfs
OpenBSD 5.9 - STABLE (Samba 4.3): Works as expected with ntvfs
OpenBSD 6.0 - BASE (Samba 4.4): Had to modify makefile to include ntvfs
support. smb service (aka ntvfs) fails to start
OpenBSD 6.0 - STABLE (Samba 4.4): Had to modify makefile to include
ntvfs support. smb service (aka ntvfs) fails to start
OpenBSD CURRENT (Samba 4.5): ntvfs support already in makefile, works as
expected.
Is it reasonable to expect samba 4.5 to be backported to 6.0 stable in
the near future?
