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

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 09:22:18AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:

> > > +# 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

<ahem> better make it part of the fhs patch submission then, since that's
ultimately where this comes from. :)

> > > +# 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.

Yes, clearly so.

> 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>

I'm not sure that we would want the share count to be unlimited by default
either, though?

> > 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.

cifsshare would also be ok with me.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon at debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/