On Thu, November 17, 2011 13:34, John Heim wrote:
I am confused... Using an ldap server as a backend for samba4 is not
recommended? We are primarily a linux shop. We have an ldap database we
use for authentication. I can't use that anymore if I switch to samba4?
If you don't need to emulate
On Thu, June 9, 2011 09:46, Charles Marcus wrote:
It would be nice if one of the list moms would immediately unsubscribe
AND PERMANENTLY BAN idiots who use braindead autoreply filters.
This should be official list policy for ALL email lists...
Except some people don't have a choice in what
On Wed, August 4, 2010 10:33, Gaiseric Vandal wrote:
the ngroup_max issue isn't specific to an active directory
environment.I found with samba 3.0.x, if you were in more than 16
groups, you might not have all the access you thought you should but you
could still logon. (samba didn't check
On Wed, August 4, 2010 09:44, Gaiseric Vandal wrote:
I did have some issues when switching from UFS to ZFS. ZFS ACL model is
a lot more in line with Windows than UFS ACL's were. With UFS, it
looked like potential mismatches between Windows and UFS acl's were
ignored.
ZFS model = NFSv4
On Jul 10, 2010, at 11:25, Mark Fox wrote:
I've read that Samba can be given multiple netbios names and multiple
configuration files to achieve something like what we want. But the
posts
were very old. Has anything changed? Is there a better way to
achieve what
we want now? Maybe what we
On Mon, April 19, 2010 11:13, Jeremy Allison wrote:
This is RPC encryption, not SMB transport encryption. This can
be negotiated on the traffic being carried within the SMB
transport.
Are OpenSSL's routines for all of this? If you have hardware support for
encryption (add-in card, CPU a la
Hello,
I'm running a compiled-from-source instance of Samba 3.4.5 on RHEL AS 4u2,
and am having some flakiness with AD-Unix mappings. We're talking to a
Windows 2008R2 server, with AD in 2003 mode I believe.
What the issue appears to be is that smbd does not seem to want to talk
with winbindd.
On Thu, October 29, 2009 13:10, Marcel Ritter wrote:
On 10/28/2009 at 08:42 PM, David Magda wrote:
[...]
RPM build errors:
File not found: /var/tmp/samba-3.2.15-root/usr/sbin/cifs.upcall
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/samba-3.2.15-root/usr/share/man/man8/cifs.upcall.8
On Thu, October 29, 2009 14:33, David Magda wrote:
On Thu, October 29, 2009 13:10, Marcel Ritter wrote:
On 10/28/2009 at 08:42 PM, David Magda wrote:
[...]
RPM build errors:
File not found: /var/tmp/samba-3.2.15-root/usr/sbin/cifs.upcall
File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/samba-3.2.15
On Thu, October 29, 2009 15:05, Jeff Layton wrote:
Be forewarned that there's no kernel support for DFS or krb5 in RHEL4
(unless you've added that yourself). So there's little reason to install
cifs.upcall there.
So is the samba.spec file designed for RHEL 5+ then? I'm trying to
simplify things
On Oct 29, 2009, at 19:40, Jeff Layton wrote:
It sounds like something is broken with your install. My RHEL4 host
has
a keyutils.so and keyutils.h as part of the keyutils-devel and
keyutils-libs packages.
According to the RPM database things are the way they should be:
$ rpm -qa | grep
Hello,
Trying to compile Samba 3.2.15 on a RHEL AS 4u2 (i686) and I'm getting the
following result from 'sh makerpms.sh':
Provides: samba-doc = 3.2.15-1
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) =
3.0.3-1
RPM
12 matches
Mail list logo
