Closed after talking to Robie about it.
** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged = Won't Fix
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to samba in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
Title:
Please add a
Closed after talking to Robie about it.
** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged = Won't Fix
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
Title:
Please add a samba-dev package
@Chuck: I don't think that was fixed.
** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Released = Triaged
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to samba in
@Chuck: I don't think that was fixed.
** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Released = Triaged
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
This has been fixed in lucid.
Regards
chuck
** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged = Fix Released
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to
@Chuck
Thanks! But I can't find a samba-dev in
http://packages.ubuntu.com/source/lucid/samba, and I've tried building
the latest source and can't find the header files in there. Am I not
looking at the same version as you?
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
This has been fixed in lucid.
Regards
chuck
** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged = Fix Released
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
@Chuck
Thanks! But I can't find a samba-dev in
http://packages.ubuntu.com/source/lucid/samba, and I've tried building
the latest source and can't find the header files in there. Am I not
looking at the same version as you?
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided = Wishlist
** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed = Triaged
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is
** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided = Wishlist
** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed = Triaged
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
jelmer: What's the correct way to build a VFS module then? Complete
replacement for the samba package = that provides even worse security,
because a strict versioning at least warns the admin that something is
reeking.
samba-with-my-vfs-module OTOH would just get stuck at an unsafe version
As another example for a package that provides an unstable API, consider
postgresql-server-dev, that is versioned too (and it's useful for
building stuff like slony that needs to interoperate on a intimate level
with the server).
--
Please add a samba-dev package
jelmer: What's the correct way to build a VFS module then? Complete
replacement for the samba package = that provides even worse security,
because a strict versioning at least warns the admin that something is
reeking.
samba-with-my-vfs-module OTOH would just get stuck at an unsafe version
As another example for a package that provides an unstable API, consider
postgresql-server-dev, that is versioned too (and it's useful for
building stuff like slony that needs to interoperate on a intimate level
with the server).
--
Please add a samba-dev package
** CVE removed: http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-
bin/cvename.cgi?name=2008-1105
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
Which package needs these?
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to samba in ubuntu.
--
Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list
Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
But the 'samba' binary package doesn't provide any shared libraries to
link against does it? So why install the header files? The Samba source
package does provide libsmbclient, which is a shared library with header
files.
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
I'm working on a VFS module for samba which needs the headers to build -
it builds as a shared library which samba will load (as directed in
smb.conf).
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
These header files don't provide a stable API - there are no public and
private headers in Samba at the moment; function signatures may change
between minor releases. It should be possible to provide these headers,
but it requires splitting the headers up in upstream first.
** Changed in: samba
This is interesting. I've never heard of Samba being able to do anything
like this. What's the configuration directive for it (so that I can dig
up a bit of info about the it all)?
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
You received this bug notification because
The smb.conf directive is vfs objects. Also see:
http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-Developers-Guide/vfs.html
There are some modules included with samba too.
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
You received this bug notification because you are a
My primary concern is this:
Since the API isn't published nor stable you'd have to have a strict
versioned dependency on the samba version against which your package is
built. This is not a problem in itself, but it becomes one if someone
has your package installed, and we publish a security
I agree that letting my package hold back a security update would be a
bad thing, and this would happen with a strict versioned dependency. I
don't see any way to avoid this, so I propose that I don't make the
dependency so strict.
As you say, this has the potential to break should the API
FWIW, API changes in security releases do happen. The second-to-last
security release changed several function signatures, for example
(http://us5.samba.org/samba/ftp/patches/security/samba-3.0.29-CVE-2008-1105.patch).
We as upstream don't install all of these headers as-is intentionally.
At the
Which package needs these?
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
But the 'samba' binary package doesn't provide any shared libraries to
link against does it? So why install the header files? The Samba source
package does provide libsmbclient, which is a shared library with header
files.
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
I'm working on a VFS module for samba which needs the headers to build -
it builds as a shared library which samba will load (as directed in
smb.conf).
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
These header files don't provide a stable API - there are no public and
private headers in Samba at the moment; function signatures may change
between minor releases. It should be possible to provide these headers,
but it requires splitting the headers up in upstream first.
** Changed in: samba
I understand that I'd need to track changes in the API. One of the
reasons I want to build against a samba-dev package is that then the
header files will match the build of samba that is installed on the
system.
If I take a copy of the relevant headers and embed that into my source
tree and the
This is interesting. I've never heard of Samba being able to do anything
like this. What's the configuration directive for it (so that I can dig
up a bit of info about the it all)?
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
You received this bug notification because
The smb.conf directive is vfs objects. Also see:
http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-Developers-Guide/vfs.html
There are some modules included with samba too.
--
Please add a samba-dev package
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302004
You received this bug notification because you are a
My primary concern is this:
Since the API isn't published nor stable you'd have to have a strict
versioned dependency on the samba version against which your package is
built. This is not a problem in itself, but it becomes one if someone
has your package installed, and we publish a security
I agree that letting my package hold back a security update would be a
bad thing, and this would happen with a strict versioned dependency. I
don't see any way to avoid this, so I propose that I don't make the
dependency so strict.
As you say, this has the potential to break should the API
FWIW, API changes in security releases do happen. The second-to-last
security release changed several function signatures, for example
(http://us5.samba.org/samba/ftp/patches/security/samba-3.0.29-CVE-2008-1105.patch).
We as upstream don't install all of these headers as-is intentionally.
At the
34 matches
Mail list logo
