Hi list,
Has anybody else gone through this posixGroup vs. groupOfNames pain? I mean, what kind of a design accident is this? Samba 3.4 seems unable to deal with rfc2307bis (which makes posixGroup auxiliary). I'll definitely talk to the samba list on this, too, but maybe somebody can tell me what the status of the rfc2307bis mess is, anyway. Looks to me like this whole issue has been rotting at the ietf for like 10 years and nobody seems to care about it. Except openSuSE, who allegedly use it by default. No idea how they made samba work with it, though. In my naïve mind the patch should be almost trivial (just use groupOfNames as structuralObjectClass and add a dummy member), but I suspect it's not in vanilla samba because of the vague status of rfc2307bis. So... any insight on this whole rfc2307bis scenario is highly appreciated.
Thanks a lot in advance.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 01:50:59AM +0200, Victor Mataré wrote:
Please see samba bug #4597
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4597
OpenSUSE 11.2 patch was already posted.
-- --- Oota Toshiya --- t-oota at dh.jp.nec.com NEC Systems Software Operations Unit Shiba,Minato,Tokyo IT Platform Solutions Division Japan,Earth,Solar system (samba-jp/ldap-jp Staff,mutt-j/samba-jp postmaster)
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 02:17:51AM +0200, Victor Mataré wrote:
But then there's still the quasi-hack status of rfc2307bis, which I'm reluctant to build a production directory on. Anything happening there?
Maybe, Samba Team forget this problem. I will ask why this problem is suspended.
-- --- Oota Toshiya --- t-oota at dh.jp.nec.com NEC Systems Software Operations Unit Shiba,Minato,Tokyo IT Platform Solutions Division Japan,Earth,Solar system (samba-jp/ldap-jp Staff,mutt-j/samba-jp postmaster)
openldap-technical@openldap.org
-
ITPFS oota -
Victor Mataré