[Pkg-samba-maint] Bug#679678:

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:28:33PM +0200, Jorge Salamero Sanz wrote:
> On 07/18/2012 10:54 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> >This bug has already been fixed, by switching Samba4 back to ntvfs.
> >We can't ship smbd as that would clash with the Samba 3 packages,
> >which also ship a smbd binary. In the future the samba4 package
> >(perhaps renamed as samba-dc) will depend on the samba package for
> >smbd; at the moment this is not possible because the version of Samba
> >that is shipped is too old.
> We are going to test this integration (samba4 and samba3 packages),
> vfs plugins are still important for us so we need smbd.

> >There is a separate bug about provision failing when there is no FQDN,
> >bug 681048. I'm not sure what the best solution for that case is
> >though; simply using a different default is likely to be incorrect
> I agree that a fallback fixed domain is not very elegant, what other
> packages in this situation do here?
I've wondered about that too - I guess in the worst case we could
always ask the user with a high debconf priority?

> Since installer doesn't ask for the domain, is likely most of the
> installations doesn't have a domain configured, so apt-get install
> samba4 will fail with default configuration.
Yeah, it is definitely something we should fix. Using a hardcoded
string that will be wrong in most cases will just hide the actual
issue though.

Cheers,

Jelmer