[Pkg-samba-maint] Bug#688003: Bug#688003: winbind4: libwbclient.so.0 no version information available

[Eric Reischer]

package winbind4 depends on libwbclient0, which is part of the 3.x 
tree.  There is no libwbclient0 that is native 4.x, and winbind support 
is what is needed in this particular setup.  I do not want to mix 
package versions, but the dependencies of the libraries seem to require 
me to.

Perhaps if the samba4 package included the libwbclient0 built from the 
4.x source, had libwbclient0 as a "provides:" and conflicted with the 
libwbclient0 package itself, this problem might be eliminated.

I'm running 4.0.0~beta2 because that's what's in jessie/wheezy, and this 
is an install of the stable release.  I have not tried installing 4.0.10 
yet, since I was able to get as "clean" a version working as possible 
using no packages from the unstable tree. Besides, I looked at the 
dependencies for package samba (2:4.0.10+dfsg-3), and it also depends on 
a 3.x version of libwbclient0.


On 10/28/2013 04:52 PM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-10-28 at 15:03 -0400, Eric Reischer wrote:
>> I can confirm this bug is, in fact, still relevant.  While the message
>> itself is seemingly harmless, 'pam_winbind' and 'wbinfo' both fail to
>> work when connecting to a local samba4 domain controller, ostensibly
>> because of this error.  'wbinfo -p' to a running samba server returns an
>> error, and pam_winbind fails to authenticate users with errors hinting
>> at an inability to connect to the winbind daemon.  Curiously, 'getent
>> passwd' with winbind set up in nsswitch.conf still works and returns all
>> users in active directory; it's just auth and the wbinfo utility that
>> are broken by this.
>>
>> I downloaded the Debian source package for the v4 tree
>> (4.0.0~beta2+dfsg1-3.2) and built it, but extracted the
>> "libwbclient.so.0" file before debian/rules deleted it, and installed
>> that in place of the v3.x one that is shipped in the libwbclient0
>> package, and both 'pam_winbind' and 'wbinfo -p' began working as expected.
> You seem to still be mixing samba 3.x and samba4 packages.  We spent a
> lot of time unifying these packages, into just 'samba', because of
> issues such as these.
>
> Does this reproduce when you install samba-4.0.10 and related packages
> from unstable?
>
> I don't see how we can proceed further, the mix of 'samba' and 'samba4'
> was a gross hack, primarily done to support openchange, and a great deal
> of work was spent undoing that split.  Samba 4.0.0beta2 is also very,
> very old now, and is considered long-deprecated by upstream.   You have
> found here one of the many reasons you should not run that code in
> production.
>
> Thanks,
>