[Pkg-samba-maint] Bug#443230: Enable net usershare

[Christian Perrier]

> > +# Setup usershare options to enable non-root user to share folders
> > +# with the net usershare command.
> > +
> > +# The path were the share definition will be stored. Only members of the group
> > +# owning the path will be able to use the net usershare command.
> > +   usershare path = /var/lib/samba/usershares
> 
> Could this be better addressed by fixing the built-in default in the binary
> instead of requiring an override in smb.conf?  (The current default seems to
> be /var/run/samba/usershares, which is simply wrong.)

I agree here. We should propose a patch to upstream as I don't see any
reason to have a default to /var/run/samba/usershares


> 
> > +# Maximum number of usershare. 0 (default) means that usershare is disabled.
> > +   usershare max shares = 100
> 
> Why "100" as the max shares limit?  (It seems that any limit we'd choose is
> arbitrary and an override of the upstream value, so I'm not particularly
> bothered by the number, just wondering if there's a rationale for this
> cutoff.)

I think that 0 being the default AND a way to disable usershares, we
need to setup a limit if we want to activate the feature.

Indeed, upstream's default is a bit strange here. I would more expect
one setting to activate usershares and another one to specify the
maximum number (with 0 meaning no limit). Something like:

usershare = yes
usershare max shares = <integer>

The current design completely prevents setting no limit at all except
by setting the limit to an outrageously high number.


> On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:50:01PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > A first concern comes with the dedicated group name. Should we use
> > "smbshare" and then still advertise that obsolete acronym (SMB) which
> > is however known by nearly everybody?
> 
> How about "sambashare" or "samba-share"?  It does, after all, have little to
> do with the smb protocol, but everything to do with the samba package.

I have a small preference for "sambashare" while "cifsshare" seems
more precise to me....but more cryptic for people who don't know what
CIFS is.


> 
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:14:59PM -0400, Mathias Gug wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:50:01PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > > A first concern comes with the dedicated group name. Should we use
> > > "smbshare" and then still advertise that obsolete acronym (SMB) which
> > > is however known by nearly everybody?
> 
> > Another proposal is to use a group named fileshare, that could be used
> > to define a list of users that are allowed to define shared directories
> > on the network (via samba, nfs, ftp or any other protocol).
> 
> I'd prefer not to use a generic name here; even supposing that some other
> package would want to do something similar for other protocols, there's no
> reason to assume that the privilege would be granted to the same users
> regardless of protocol.  It's easier to add more groups to the list of
> default permissions for single-user systems than it is to split a group
> after the fact.

Sure, I more or less had the same feeling.

> 
> Anyway, I am in favor of enabling this feature, I just think the patch needs
> a bit of work first.


We definitely agree here...


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-samba-maint/attachments/20070923/cf6bc7d7/attachment.pgp