Andrew Bartlett wrote:
Markus Schabel wrote:
John H Terpstra wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, William Jojo wrote:So there will never be a stable samba again? ;)
Just tought I'd follow up and see if 2.2.6 is truly the last release ofYes, 2.2.6 is the latest stable release.
samba_2_2 CVS branch.
:-)
great, at least one realized that this was a joke ;)
I'm not sure if this is helpful when replicating the complete Directory to the Samba-Server, but at least it sounds good.Depending on how you also use LDAP, there are some good reasons to moveWe hope that this will be ourthe last version I had problems with was 2.2.3a (on a SuSE system) and
last update. All samba-team resources are now focussing on getting 3.0.0
readt for release. Right now 3.0.0 is still changing significantly and we
would not recommend it's use in a production environment.
We've got six systems running it with no visible issues.If it is not broken then why fix it?
2.2.4 (there were problems with LDAP, all solved since 2.2.5)
I'm currently working on a PDC for about 300 LDAP-based users, I guessI'm currently testing CVS from Sunday's pull of 3.0...is this theYes. But do your home work. Test, test, test, and give us feedback.
direction I should be heading?
with LDAP there is no problem when migrating to 3.0? Probably I'll run
the actual CVS parallel....
to 3.0. In HEAD, pdb_ldap now has connection caching, and does not
modify unchanged attributes (these benefits provided by metze, who has
the significant advantage of using samba on a large and complex ldap
infrastructure).
I guess that's really helpful for us.We hope to move this stuff into the next 3.0 alpha. Samba 3.0 also adds 'ldap passwd sync', to help keep the LDAP and SMB passwords in sync.
Do the computer accounts still need to be full posix users? It would simplify things a bit if not.
regards
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
