What can we do if we have the 3.0.0.23c version already as far as the patch goes? David Shapiro Distributed Systems Unix Team Lead office: 919-765-2011 cellphone: 730-0538
>>> "Gerald (Jerry) Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8/23/2006 3:10 PM >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Matthias Schündehütte wrote: > Hi Jerry, > > On 2006-08-21 23:09:05 +0200, "Gerald (Jerry) Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > >> Does your username map use a ! to stop the parsing. >> See the man page for details. > > Sure! Your question made me uncertain since this could be a typical > mistake for quick 'n dirty test setups, but I rechecked today: The > exclamation marks are all there. > > I found today another problem: Samba denied a usermapping with the > message that a domaingroup with the same name exists... nice to know but > who cares? If I want to access local unix files with the account 'foo', > what does it matter if there is a windows domain group 'foo'? > > I downgraded my production server to 3.0.22 today, but I have now a > complete identical testserver (same os, same net, same hardware) to > track down this misbehaviour. In that case, would you test this patch against 3.0.23b? http://samba.org/~jerry/patches/patch-3.0.23b-3.0.23c-gwc-1.diffs.gz Thanks, jerry ===================================================================== Samba ------- http://www.samba.org Centeris ----------- http://www.centeris.com "What man is a man who does not make the world better?" --Balian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE7KhAIR7qMdg1EfYRAqeJAKCGOZPtL3qpErb+I/jjM0RqiAV35gCZAZc6 QIGQHNe/UCp1HMDYrD2Rnh0= =LP6d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
