I recently newly built Samba 3.0 from CVS, and tried it.
I have a problem with it. On connection to it - that is, when giving
the password, the connection terminates
In the log file for the machine, after a few things like:
tdb_unpack(ddffd, 23) - 19
[2003/02/17 12:06:05, 18]
Hi all,
tried to dig into it, testing with various clients, browsing level 10 logs
and hacking posic_acls.c, which are all almost equally trivial (read: oh
dear it got my head spinning. :).
I think there are basically two problem:
1. Windows clients do not always send ACEs for
Hi.
I use samba with linux 7.2 kernel 4.7, samba 2.2.1a
I have this in ma station's log: log.irek
[2003/02/17 12:32:07, 0] lib/util_sock.c:read_socket_data(478)
read_socket_data: recv failure for 4. Error = Connection reset by peer
[2003/02/17 12:48:33, 0]
On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 14:42, Ireneusz Piasecki wrote:
Hi.
I use samba with linux 7.2 kernel 4.7, samba 2.2.1a
Is there any solution to avoid these errors ??
With redhat 6.2 and samba 2.0.2 (?) tehere were no errors.
Hi,
I had the same problems. Upgrade your samba to 2.2.7a and it will
Hello,
we have a printserver, which was originally build with samba 2.2.5. For
some reason, we switched to samba 3.0alpha20 later, which worked fine.
The only problem is, that it crashes when changing the default page
properties (NT4: printer - right mouse button - default page
properties
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 07:04:55AM -0500, Ken Cross wrote:
Samba-folk:
When building SAMBA_3_0 on NetBSD (and I think any OS except Linux,
Solaris, or OSF) with iconv support, configure can't figure out that
iconv is really present. It's because in iconv.h, it defines:
#ifndef
Please disregard this stale e-mail. It has been subsumed by bug fix?:
2.2.7a, nmbd/nmbd_packets.c, listen_for_packets()
Thanks,
Peter Hurley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Currently, SAMBA_3_0 uses the following code to decide whether to build
shared or static libs:
[ case $withval in
no)
AC_MSG_RESULT(no)
;;
*)
if test $BLDSHARED = true; then
INSTALLCLIENTCMD_SH=\$(INSTALLCMD)
LIBSMBCLIENT_SHARED=bin/libsmbclient.$SHLIBEXT
In rpc_server/srv_spoolss_nt.c:srv_spoolss_send_event_to_client():
Could someone tell me why the following lines of code were added?
if (Printer-printer_type == PRINTER_HANDLE_IS_PRINTSERVER)
msg-flags |= PRINTER_MESSAGE_ATTRIBUTES;
The problem is that sending expanded NOTIFY_INFO_DATA
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 02:53:14PM +0100, Olaf Fr?czyk wrote:
On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 14:42, Ireneusz Piasecki wrote:
Hi.
I use samba with linux 7.2 kernel 4.7, samba 2.2.1a
Is there any solution to avoid these errors ??
With redhat 6.2 and samba 2.0.2 (?) tehere were no errors.
Hi
I am using Samba on Linux.
I noticed that I cannot create a file size of more than 2 GB.
Is there a fix for this?
Thanks a lot.
Mary
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, mary manohar wrote:
Hi
I am using Samba on Linux.
I noticed that I cannot create a file size of more than 2 GB.
Is there a fix for this?
Update to Linux kernel 2.4.x and to a recent version of samba that has
been compiled on kernel 2.4.x.
- John T.
--
John H Terpstra
On 17 Feb 2003, Boyce, Nick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK - I've been trying to apply the patch that Tim posted (to supersede
Martin's first cut) to the Samba 2.2.7a source file for util_sock.c, but get
errors applying the patch no matter what I do.
Thanks for trying that.
I guess the posted
On 17 Feb 2003, Boyce, Nick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's what I get if I apply the posted patch :
As I said I'll send you an update just for 2.2. But in general, in
case you're interested, here are some tips on applying mismatched
patches:
MYBOX:/usr/local/src/samba-2.2.7a/source/lib#
Does anyone know how to detect a truu64 system in configure.in ?
I'm going through my patchlist and there is a big optimisation that
can be done on systems where the getgrnam() call works (True64 is
listed as the only broken system) and I'd like to add this to
all branches by adding a
StrCaseCmp (and strequal) in HEAD has the interesting side-effect that it only
compares the first PSTRING_LEN (1024) bytes of the strings.
I suppose comparing strings longer than that is probably a bit
unlikely, but it still seems kind of dangerous.
Would it be OK to change it to use dynamic
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 11:01, Martin Pool wrote:
StrCaseCmp (and strequal) in HEAD has the interesting side-effect that it only
compares the first PSTRING_LEN (1024) bytes of the strings.
I suppose comparing strings longer than that is probably a bit
unlikely, but it still seems kind of
On 18 Feb 2003, Andrew Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Possibly only for long strings? But then that is probably
micro-optimization.
If we really cared about optimizing this function, then we would
compare character-by-character rather than converting both strings to
uppercase first.
On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 14:02, Peter Hurley wrote:
When running a WINS server using the following configuration:
[global]
wins support = yes
interfaces = 192.168.1.0/24
bind interfaces only = true
the WINS server erroneously discards 127.0.0.1 requests from SMBD
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know how to detect a truu64 system in configure.in ?
I'm going through my patchlist and there is a big optimisation that
can be done on systems where the getgrnam() call works (True64 is
listed as the only broken system) and I'd like to
On 17 Feb 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know how to detect a truu64 system in configure.in ?
I'm going through my patchlist and there is a big optimisation that
can be done on systems where the getgrnam() call works (True64 is
listed as the only broken system) and I'd like to add
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 10:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know how to detect a truu64 system in configure.in ?
I'm going through my patchlist and there is a big optimisation that
can be done on systems where the getgrnam() call works (True64 is
listed as the only broken system) and I'd
Is there any kind of consensus (he says, hopefully) that Doxygen is a
good idea? If I'm looking at code is it OK to cleanup comments into
standard form?
--
Martin
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 10:50, Martin Pool wrote:
Is there any kind of consensus (he says, hopefully) that Doxygen is a
good idea? If I'm looking at code is it OK to cleanup comments into
standard form?
Go for it!
Andrew Bartlett
--
Andrew Bartlett [EMAIL
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Martin Pool wrote:
Is there any kind of consensus (he says, hopefully) that Doxygen is a
good idea? If I'm looking at code is it OK to cleanup comments into
standard form?
Yes, please do ...
Regards
-
Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]ns.aus.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org,
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:35:32 +1100
Martin Pool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 18 Feb 2003, Andrew Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Possibly only for long strings? But then that is probably
micro-optimization.
If we really cared about optimizing this function, then we would
compare
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 11:01:53AM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
StrCaseCmp (and strequal) in HEAD has the interesting side-effect that it only
compares the first PSTRING_LEN (1024) bytes of the strings.
I suppose comparing strings longer than that is probably a bit
unlikely, but it still seems
On 18 Feb 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What exactly do you want to do here ? I'm not clear what
you mean?
The thing I noticed is that StrCaseCmp (and indeed many charcnv
function) truncate strings to 1024 characters.
I got here following a Valgrind assertion which may or may not be
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:23:40PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
On 18 Feb 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What exactly do you want to do here ? I'm not clear what
you mean?
The thing I noticed is that StrCaseCmp (and indeed many charcnv
function) truncate strings to 1024 characters.
I
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:24:23AM +, Chris Wakelin wrote:
We had big problems with an upgrade to Samba 2.2.3a on Solaris 8 due
to this groups change. Samba 2.2.2 was fine, but had occassional
oplock problems (hence the desire to upgrade). We have a large number
(~1000) of (sometimes
30 matches
Mail list logo
