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

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 08:16:58PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Steve:

> > > 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. :)

> I don't understand the "comes from". Do you mean that our fhs.patch is
> responsible for the strange default directory for usershares. If it
> is, then we should correct it, for sure.

Upstream's "lockdir", which is the only directory that upstream defines and
uses for state, is mapped in the Debian packages to /var/run/samba.  Yes,
it's a bug in the Debian package that we aren't mapping usershares to
/var/lib in the fhs patch.  Here's the interdiff for the fix:

diff -u samba-3.0.25c/source/param/loadparm.c samba-3.0.26a/source/param/loadparm.c
--- samba-3.0.25c/source/param/loadparm.c       2007-08-26 13:08:59.919823466 +0200
+++ samba-3.0.26a/source/param/loadparm.c
@@ -1672,7 +1672,7 @@
        Globals.bASUSupport       = False;
        
        /* User defined shares. */
-       pstrcpy(s, dyn_LOCKDIR);
+       pstrcpy(s, dyn_STATEDIR());
        pstrcat(s, "/usershares");
        string_set(&Globals.szUsersharePath, s);
        string_set(&Globals.szUsershareTemplateShare, "");

I'll commit this fix to svn, it's needed independently of whether we choose
to activate usershares by default.

> > > usershare = yes
> > > usershare max shares = <integer>
> > 
> > I'm not sure that we would want the share count to be unlimited by default
> > either, though?

> Well, picking a number would be tricky. One that's suitable for Joe
> might be completely incorrect for Barbara.

I don't think it would be tricky, I think it would just be arbitrary. :)

> > > > 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.

> While technically "cifsshare" is more precise, I think that
> "sambashare" is clearer for our users.

Ok.

-- 
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/