[Pkg-samba-maint] Bug#249873: Bug#249873: (samba-common: debian samba ignores "private dir" directive) is also a problem with virtual hosts in Samba

Christian PERRIER bubulle at debian.org
Wed Sep 7 18:35:39 UTC 2011

tags 249873 - wontfix

Quoting Axel Beckert (abe at debian.org):
> reopen 249873
> kthxbye
> Hi,
> Bug#249873 (samba-common: debian samba ignores "private dir"
> directive) was closed together with three other merged bug reports
> because http://bugs.debian.org/297925 (Please support running multiple
> instances) was closed with "wontfix".
> Nevertheless, despite all the other bugs were merged together, they
> are not the same problem, but merely problems which occurred when
> trying to do a setup as described in http://bugs.debian.org/297925 and
> seemed not to have any other ill side effects. But in the meanwhile,
> they do, at least this bug (#249873) does:
> Newer Samba versions support virtual hosts which are a way easier to
> setup alternative to running multiple instances. But if you want more
> than one virtual host to join a domain (compared to just use
> workgroups), you need seperate privat_dir settings for each virtual
> host. With the current FHS patch (as in Squeeze and Natty at least)
> only one virtual host can join a domain.
> If you configure several virtual hosts to join a domain only the last
> one succeeds by overwriting data of the previously started virtual
> hosts because they share the same private_dir.
> This is especially annoying in a heterogene environment where you have
> Macs, Linux and Windows PCs accessing the Samba as they unfortunately need
> disjunct configurations to work properly. (IIRC unix extensions caused
> a lot of problems with Macs, but were needed with Linux PCs mounting
> Samba shares, otherwise stuff like 
> P.S.: I didn't not remove the "wontfix" tag as this is purely a
> maintainer's decision, but I'd be happy if you would not regard this
> bug report as the same issue as http://bugs.debian.org/297925 anymore
> and remove that tag.
> P.P.S.: Currently this issue also hinders local admins to implement
> what has been suggested in http://bugs.debian.org/297925 to implement
> locally instead of implementing support in the Debian package, but as
> mentioned above, this is not the only issue, #249873 causes.

"Funnily", I was about to send the same bug report (forgetting that we
already had one) as I experienced the exact same problem reported by
Axel on my own production servers (some have to be domain controllers
for two different domains)

We must remove the wontfix tag and this is maintainer's decision..:-)

Thanks, Axel, for reopening the bug report.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-samba-maint/attachments/20110907/452b148d/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Pkg-samba-maint mailing list