Well, you might post your smb.conf. And you might post a
debug level 10 log of smbd leading up to this message
somewhere. Then, we might need to see the permissions of the
directories leading up to /var/lib/samba/usershares/.
Volker
hello,
here is my smb.conf : http://pastebin.fr/28690
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0200, Pascal Legrand wrote:
Well, you might post your smb.conf. And you might post a
debug level 10 log of smbd leading up to this message
somewhere. Then, we might need to see the permissions of the
directories leading up to /var/lib/samba/usershares/.
Hi Bob,
Unfortunally yes! I'm using Freepbx, but it's a test environment, I want to
evaluate Samba4's integration capabilities, one of them was Asterisk, but
also I want to evaluate with Cisco devices, and software developed in my
company. But after I read your post I have been searching about
Try setting
usershare path =
in smb.conf
Volker
Hello volker,
i try what you told me to do , and i'll told you if the messages come again.
Thanks for your help
Before :
[root@samba] ~ # testparm -v |grep -i usershare
usershare allow guests = No
usershare max shares = 100
Release Announcements
=
This is the third release candidate of Samba 4.1. This is *not*
intended for production environments and is designed for testing
purposes only. Please report any defects via the Samba bug reporting
system at https://bugzilla.samba.org/.
Samba 4.1
Hi,
After days working in this topic and thanks to Rowland's support I imported
Asterisk class and attributes into Samba4. I have not found any how-to
about this, so I post a entry in my blog. Maybe it can help someone in a
future...
Why has SWAT been removed? Now that it is not there, is there no
official administration tool to administer Samba? Also, does this mean
that SWAT will no longer be supported?
Thanks,
-Ram
REMOVED COMPONENTS
==
The Samba Web Administration Tool (SWAT) has been removed.
--
To
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 02:10:11PM +0530, B.K.Raghuram wrote:
Why has SWAT been removed? Now that it is not there, is there no
official administration tool to administer Samba? Also, does this mean
that SWAT will no longer be supported?
there was a mail thread before the decision. Please
Hello,
I have recently started having problems with my installation of Samba
that I can't attribute to any single cause. On some of the computers I
have networked (like 2-3 of total 40) sometimes I can't access some
shares (again, 2-3 shares from 26 total). When this error occurs,
Windows
On 2013-09-07 09:06, Szymon Życiński wrote:
DNSMasq is providing only DHCP and NAT. DNS thing is provided by samba
internal dns. Today i saw only 5 clinents with host A created in DNS.
All of them was working with WIN7. How to diagnose this situation?
What operating systems are running on the
You give almost no information about what's wrong or the details.
What version of Samba? 4.0.?
Did your install go flawlessly, and the new Samba box joined the
domain fine?
What Windows clients, Win7, XP, Vista, Win8, Win95?
Are the windows clients members of the domain?
What is holding the
I've tried this guide : https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba4/Domain_Member
Which as far as i can se is the nearest thing to an official advisory on how to
join a file-sharing host to en active directory.
wbinfo -u and wbinfo -g works, but we cannot access the share from our windows
clients,
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Hi,
i try to migrate an existing W2k3 AD to Samba4 with bind.
Everything works fine, but dnsupdate fails with error:
dns_tkey_negotiategss: TKEY is unaccepteable.
I found a lot of discussions around this topic, but no solution.
Envirenment:
OS: SLES11 SP3 with bind 9.9.3P2
Samba Packages
I'm trying to solve this issue I'm having where using 'valid users =
+unixgroup' just plain doesn't work. I can't find any /documented/
reason why this is so, but nevertheless, it seems to be the case. This
is with samba 3.6.18, but seems to exist in all of 3.6.x and most or all
of 3.5.x and
Hi Greg
You give almost no information about what's wrong or the details.
I think, when you take my question into consideration, that i provided plenty
of information. But i shall try to get a little bit more into the details.
Did your install go flawlessly, and the new Samba box joined the
Release Announcements
=
This is the third release candidate of Samba 4.1. This is *not*
intended for production environments and is designed for testing
purposes only. Please report any defects via the Samba bug reporting
system at https://bugzilla.samba.org/.
Samba 4.1
The branch, v4-1-test has been updated
via 7d791d5 VERSION: Bump version number up to 4.1.0...
via dd444e6 VERSION: Disable git snapshots for the 4.1.0rc3 release.
from 3beda4c WHATSNEW: Update changes since 4.1.0rc2.
The branch, v4-1-stable has been updated
via 6a03c81 VERSION: Disable git snapshots for the 4.1.0rc3 release.
via d9517d5 WHATSNEW: Update changes since 4.1.0rc2.
via cfa4e2a Optimization. Don't do the retry logic if sitename_fetch()
returned NULL, we already did a NULL
The annotated tag, samba-4.1.0rc3 has been created
at 757e9eab4f67a620d8a05fd226b60244643cc132 (tag)
tagging 6a03c817b3a0ef278d10893eafd327ee20bdca58 (commit)
replaces samba-4.1.0rc2
tagged by Karolin Seeger
on Fri Sep 6 12:00:16 2013 +0200
- Log
The branch, master has been updated
via 6cab7c8 Announce Samba 4.1.0rc3.
from f1efa59 Add Catalyst IT as global supporting company too
http://gitweb.samba.org/?p=samba-web.git;a=shortlog;h=master
- Log -
commit
The branch, master has been updated
via 73278cd smbd: Convert br_lck-lock_data to talloc
via 20cc710 smbd: Move struct byte_range_lock definition to brlock.c
via 07948ef smbd: Add brl_fsp access function
via 6bcfc1a smbd: Add brl_num_locks access function
via
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:16:02AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
The branch, master has been updated
via 73278cd smbd: Convert br_lck-lock_data to talloc
via 20cc710 smbd: Move struct byte_range_lock definition to brlock.c
via 07948ef smbd: Add brl_fsp access function
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:18:50AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:16:02AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
The branch, master has been updated
via 73278cd smbd: Convert br_lck-lock_data to talloc
via 20cc710 smbd: Move struct byte_range_lock definition
On 2013-09-11 at 10:18 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:16:02AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
Gna. Pushed from the wrong tree. This was meant to carry
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison j...@samba.org
tags. Push a revert?
I'd say there is no point. It is in the tree and you
The branch, master has been updated
via 403ddac dsdb: When using an LDAP backend, force use of the password
from secrets.ldb
from 73278cd smbd: Convert br_lck-lock_data to talloc
http://gitweb.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=shortlog;h=master
- Log
The branch, master has been updated
via 40db563 selftest: change to src dir for panic backtrace
from 403ddac dsdb: When using an LDAP backend, force use of the password
from secrets.ldb
http://gitweb.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=shortlog;h=master
- Log
The branch, master has been updated
via 8f41142 smbd: Properly protect against invalid lock data
via 776db7d Fix is_legal_name() to not emit character conversion error
messages.
from 40db563 selftest: change to src dir for panic backtrace
The branch, master has been updated
via c0bb147ca09e82019b05ec22995623cffc3184e2 (commit)
via 36de63843de10a1f2a9ccdbbee24cc1d08542984 (commit)
via ea5576071b22e1877903ec0921d375626a23e13b (commit)
via d8a76cf79f07dfb5a93c6c9a13f16e3268c7dd57 (commit)
via
29 matches
Mail list logo
