Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samba 2.06 Released

Posted by Hemos on from the honest-i'm-a-NT-box dept.

LazLong wrote to let us know that Samba [?] 2.06 has been released. A whole slew of bug fixes, as well as some new features. The technical documentation is available, or just go all out and grab the tarball.

102 comments

  1. now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks by Haven · · Score: 2

    Now that there is an new version of Samba we should have those mindspring tests again. Wasn't a big part of that benchmark serving win98 clients through samba?

    1. Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 1

      I think it was actually apache, i don't recall seeing anything about samba on there. the benchmarks were for NT and IIS vs linux and apache, IIRC.
      ^. .^

    2. Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks by DaveHowe · · Score: 3

      Now that there is an new version of Samba we should have those mindspring tests again. Wasn't a big part of that benchmark serving win98 clients through samba?
      Not entirely sure about that - they have fixed quite a few bugs, niggles and security issues, but I don't see much if anything that would make it faster. In any case, if the test showed that NT was still faster than Samba, it would be dismissed by the linux community as biased, due to NT being optimised for Win95 and not NT workstation, or just wrong. If it showed NT slower than Samba, then Microsoft would dismiss it for almost the same reasons :+)
      --

      --
      -=DaveHowe=-
    3. Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks by DragonHawk · · Score: 2

      they have fixed quite a few bugs, niggles and security issues, but I don't see much if anything that would make it faster.

      As it should be. One of the reasons I like Open Source Software is that the programmers generally concentrate on real improvements, not arbitrary benchmarks.

      --

      dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
      I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    4. Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks by DaveHowe · · Score: 1
      They have fixed quite a few bugs, niggles and security issues, but I don't see much if anything that would make it faster.
      As it should be. One of the reasons I like Open Source Software is that the programmers generally concentrate on real improvements, not arbitrary benchmarks.
      Hmm. I /semi/ agree with that one - Improving speed is as good an upgrade as improving functionality, provided you don't go for speed either
      1. Purely to match a benchmark that has no relationship to reality and
      2. that you don't sacrifice functionality, security or reliability just to eke out that extra half-milisec.
      even *I* could speed up Samba drastically - just take out all the checks for password and username, and give everyone full access to the entire tree :+)
      --
      --
      -=DaveHowe=-
    5. Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks by witz · · Score: 1

      There were benchmarks done by PC Mag (I believe it was PC Mag) well after Mindcraft that not only did IIS vs Apache, but did Samba vs NT.

    6. Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks by rugger · · Score: 1

      even *I* could speed up Samba drastically - just take out all the checks for password and username, and give everyone full access to the entire tree :+)

      That wouldn't speed up samba drasticly, since that is not where the bottlenecks are. I imagine filename searching (case insensitive), name mangling, and oplocks are where the worse bottlenecks are.

      Password authentication is rarely ever a bottleneck

    7. Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks by sjvn · · Score: 1

      They're a coming--but not from Mindcraft.

      Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller

    8. Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks by mpe · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I /semi/ agree with that one - Improving speed is as good an upgrade as improving functionality, provided you don't go for speed either

      1.Purely to match a benchmark that has no relationship to reality and
      2.that you don't sacrifice functionality, security or reliability just to eke out that extra half-milisec.

      Note that a great many benchmarks are likely to come under catagory one. It's far easier to automate something which is unrealistic than something which does have some relationship with the way things are accessed by people.

    9. Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks by DaveHowe · · Score: 1

      even *I* could speed up Samba drastically - just take out all the checks for password and username, and give everyone full access to the entire tree :+)
      That wouldn't speed up samba drasticly, since that is not where the bottlenecks are. I imagine filename searching (case insensitive), name mangling, and oplocks are where the worse bottlenecks are.
      Yes, I know - it was meant as a humourous statement, giving a patch everyone could see as being a *bad thing*. If I had any /good/ ideas to speed up Samba, I would either have tried them or suggested them (depending on if my coding was up to the trial)...... Password authentication is rarely ever a bottleneck
      --

      --
      -=DaveHowe=-
    10. Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks by DaveHowe · · Score: 1

      even *I* could speed up Samba drastically - just take out all the checks for password and username, and give everyone full access to the entire tree :+)
      That wouldn't speed up samba drasticly, since that is not where the bottlenecks are. I imagine filename searching (case insensitive), name mangling, and oplocks are where the worse bottlenecks are.
      Yes, I know - it was meant as a humourous statement, giving a patch everyone could see as being a *bad thing*. If I had any /good/ ideas to speed up Samba, I would either have tried them or suggested them (depending on if my coding was up to the trial)...... Password authentication is rarely ever a bottleneck
      --

      --
      -=DaveHowe=-
  2. Using Samba from O'Reilly open sourced by georgeha · · Score: 1

    Also, the Samba page mentions that Using Samba from O'Reilly will be available for downloading.

    George

  3. Hmmm. by jd · · Score: 4

    I want my money back. Freshmeat listed this as being "low urgency". New features is -always- high urgency! Even if I never use them. Why do you think I've 4.5 gigabytes of Open Source software I've never even untarred?

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Why do you think I've 4.5 gigabytes of Open
      >Source software I've never even untarred?

      because most of it won't even compile without the aid of human sacrifice?

  4. Use the mirrors.... by Xemu · · Score: 5
    There's a whole world of mirrors out there:
    --
    Tell your friends about xenu.net
    1. Re:Use the mirrors.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for that (not like a link would have done or anything)

    2. Re:Use the mirrors.... by JamesKPolk · · Score: 1

      If only L. Ron Hubbard were alive to see Xemu, doing good for mankind.

  5. All we need now... by BorgDrone · · Score: 4

    All we need now is a way to browse the samba network. I know there are app's like gnomba and LinNeighbourhood. but I want to be able to mount the 'network neighbourhood' under /samba and be able to browse that in every application just like you can allways access the network neighbourhood from any open / save dialog in window$.
    So in /samba or you have 'directories' that represent workgroups and in that directories that represent computers etc.
    that's what I would really like.
    ---

    1. Re:All we need now... by Lando · · Score: 1

      The new mounting code for this should be available in this release. Still reading the changes...

      Once you mount a drive from another machine it's as simple as cd /mnt/'the old NT server'/

      Done..

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
    2. Re:All we need now... by BorgDrone · · Score: 1

      I know, but what I want is:

      smbmount // /samba
      cd /samba/MyWorkGroup/Server1/share1

      I dont want to mount every share, but I want to mount the whole network at once, and have it update dynamically as new servers/share's become available. just like the network neighbourhood works in windows.

      ---

    3. Re:All we need now... by Lando · · Score: 1

      Nod,
      Sorry misread your comments. Shouldn't be too hard to do though. Now that mount is working, ie no longer smbmount, I would think that it would be fairly easy. Just live nfs has virtual connections that kick off when they are used.

      Lando

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
    4. Re:All we need now... by Bastian · · Score: 1

      it seems like this could be handled with a program on the main server that generates a script whenever a computer plugs in or logs out, and having clients run that script through crond or somesuch.

    5. Re:All we need now... by BorgDrone · · Score: 1

      that thought also crossed my mind by it not an option.
      I am connected to a samba network with more than 1500 computers which all contain a few shares.
      that would mean mounting thousands of shares.
      ---

    6. Re:All we need now... by Listen+Up · · Score: 1

      I think everybody here is missing the point. When I turn on my Windows machine, I don't have to type in anything to get to my friend's computer over the Network Neighborhood. Even the guys with the BeOS boxes can get onto Network Neighborhood without having to type a whole bunch of cryptic crap and make ANY sort of directories, because with over 3000 computers on my network here at school, somebody would have to be insane to want to use Samba for this purpose. Why is it so hard to make Linux/Samba act EXACTLY like Network Neighborhood? Completely Hassle-Free.

    7. Re:All we need now... by Milkman+Ken · · Score: 1

      Check out smbsh...it does just that...it creates a logical shell that allows you to access all of the "Network Neighborhood" in /smb. It's a bit buggy (pwd doesn't always work when in /smb) last time i checked, and it doesn't make teh computers available from any program, but it might help.

    8. Re:All we need now... by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Now if we can just get Windows NT to do that:

      C:\>CD \\SERVER1\SHARE1
      '\\SERVER1\SHARE1' is an invalid current directory path. UNC paths are not supported.
      --

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    9. Re:All we need now... by Spruce+Moose · · Score: 1

      Try the smbsh program:

      # make smbwrapper
      # cp bin/smbsh bin/smbwrapper.so /usr/local/samba/bin

      $ smbsh
      Username: spruce
      Password:
      $ ls /smb
      total 0
      0 ./
      0 ../
      0 ACCOUNTS/
      0 ACADEMY/
      0 ACOLYTE/

      Very cool.

    10. Re:All we need now... by dennisp · · Score: 1

      I use a program called sharity to browse large networks (no smbmount on the IRIX, FreeBSD, SunOS and AIX machines I run). It basically creates a special mount at /CIFS where you can browse the network. It's not really mounting shares. It just redirects back to localhost where it (I'm assuming) talks with sharityd which browses the network at an application level.

      Unfortunately it costs a lot of money. Free student licenses are available however. I don't know if smbmount does this as I don't use linux.
      ----------

    11. Re:All we need now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use automount

    12. Re:All we need now... by Bastian · · Score: 1

      Because that ain't the Linux Way.

      C'mon boy, you've installed X, you can handle this.


      No, really, I think it would be easy to make a network neighbourhood type client that runs under Samba. It would have to be a separate system run by the server, but it is true, that mountin 1500 computers is not very wise. The client could check the server's dynamically updated list of computers, display them in a Windows sytle view (even with the cute computer icon!) and mount them when you want to access them.


      I ain't coding it because I know jack about unix programming, though, and I have a long time to go before I am competent to be doing projects like that.

    13. Re:All we need now... by C.Lee · · Score: 0

      >Why is it so hard to make Linux/Samba act EXACTLY like Network >Neighborhood? Completely Hassle-Free.

      Because we want to keep script kiddies like yourself out of our networks....

  6. Mirror by Lando · · Score: 1

    ftp://www.rtsg.com/pub

    Lando

    --
    /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
    1. Re:Mirror by Lando · · Score: 1
      Sorry,
      Got a little excited. I've been waiting for this release. And just threw the file on one of my sites. I'll leave it up until the feeding frenzy is over.

      ftp://www.rtsg.com/pub/samba-2.0.6.tar.gz

      Lando

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
  7. Only one complaint by Shaman · · Score: 1

    Samba is a fairly heavyweight player. The executable for smbd alone on SPARC is over 1MB in size. It would be nice to see a single task, multithreaded model. That would really kick ass IMHO.

    Or maybe not. I could be wrong. Comments?

    --
    ...Steve
    1. Re:Only one complaint by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 4

      Shaman wrote :

      > It would be nice to see a single task,
      > multithreaded model. That would really kick ass
      > IMHO.

      Actually, no, I'm afraid it would suck :-). Come to one of my Samba talks if you want the gory details why, but essentially the problem is with threads switching user contexts. Think about how Samba provides UNIX security....

      Cheers,

      Jeremy Allison,
      Samba Team.

    2. Re:Only one complaint by nevets · · Score: 1

      Jeremy,

      Are you going to be in the New York/North-Eastern area anytime soon??? Would you like to talk at my college?

      Thanks,
      Steven Rostedt

      --
      Steven Rostedt
      -- Nevermind
    3. Re:Only one complaint by sam_vilain · · Score: 1
      Actually, no, I'm afraid it would suck :-). Come to one of my Samba talks if you want the gory details why, but essentially the problem is with threads switching user contexts. Think about how Samba provides UNIX security....

      I guess the solution to that would be to implement Samba as a kernel module. Then all of the routines that give you UNIX user security are available and well tested.

      Well, get on with it! ;-)

      --

    4. Re:Only one complaint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would give you vastly less security.

      With the multiprocess model, at worst a bug in one process will cause unexpected results with only the privilege of one particular user.

      As a kernel module, any bug in Samba could potentially crash your machine or do anything.

      Come to think of it, isn't that how file sharing is implemented in NT? :)

    5. Re:Only one complaint by mpe · · Score: 1

      Samba is a fairly heavyweight player. The executable for smbd alone on SPARC is over 1MB in size. It would be nice to see a single task, multithreaded model. That would really kick ass IMHO

      You are trying to apply NT biased issues about threads vs processes to unix. Where they do not apply. NT tends to use threads extensivly because process creation is very expensive under that OS.
      Also handling of multiple users gets even more complicated than it is already (It can be complicated now becuase of the MS client's ability to use a single TCP connection for multiple users.)

  8. Number 1 change ... by Hrunting · · Score: 4

    All the bug and code fixes aside, the entire reason that I'm downloading this release is for their updated documentation. When 2.05 came out, the Samba team came under heavy fire for not updating their documentation (the old smbmount pages were out of date even before that), especially considering they had completely redone the option system for smbmount and other utils. It looks like they've redone that again, but the documentation is now a) up-to-date and b) many times more verbose than it ever was.

    Kudos to the Samba team for listening to and executing the ideas of its users.

  9. MacOS X support? by kevin805 · · Score: 1

    I didn't see any mention in the documentation, but does anyone know whether this will compile on MacOS X server? I tried this with Samba 2.0.4 right when OS X came out, and couldn't get it to work right, but I don't know whether it was something misconfigured or due to the changes I had to make to the config file to get it to compile.

    1. Re:MacOS X support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there is a ppc version for 2.05, check out http://www2.kenyon.edu/people/shankb/samba/

    2. Re:MacOS X support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The header files that come with OSX server are seriously f**ked. Anyone who wants to compile programs for that thing should either wait until Apple releases a version that is useful for development, or search the net to figure out how to fix the current release. Maybe copy over the headers from Darwin? I don't know.

    3. Re:MacOS X support? by wchin · · Score: 1

      The header files that come with OSX server are seriously f**ked.

      F**ked in what way? Samba 2.0.6 compiles cleanly... the only issue is that MacOS X Server isn't recognized by the config.guess and the config.sub as distributed in Samba. That's easily remedied, especially by someone of your prowess by copying the ones that Apple supplies in /usr/libexec.

    4. Re:MacOS X support? by wchin · · Score: 1

      As soon as I do some more testing, I'll get a Mac OS X Server .pkg package up on next-ftp.peak.org. My Samba 2.0.4b and 2.0.5a packages are already up there, including instructions for compiling it yourself.

      Another place to look for software for Mac OS X Server is Stepwise's Softrak service.

      If you are in a hurry, the just copy the config.guess and the config.sub from /usr/libexec to replace the ones given in the Samba distribution. Configuring the smb.conf and other Samba issues are pretty much the same as other platforms.

  10. Large dir Lookup bug fixed ! by mbyte · · Score: 1

    Another very important one ... Large directorys now get listet much faster !

  11. Can it send userlist to Win9x 4 user level sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm running a Linux Box as an NT domain controller for a small farm of Windows sheep. So far, the 95/98 people cannot use user-level sharing because when their machine tries to retrieve the user list for the domain from the Linux box, samba cannot provide. Has this been fixed?

  12. Mandrake, SAMBA, and Win98 clients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Mandrake release of Samba 2.05a when combined with the kernel that they release is a non-functioning embarrasment.

    Sure the bug (something about too many open files) is in the Win98 clients but as released IT DOESN'T WORK.

    Is there any support at all from Mandrake for this on their lists? Nope.

    1. Re:Mandrake, SAMBA, and Win98 clients by polarbear · · Score: 1

      Worked fine here...

      Worked with Mandrake 6.1 with shipped kernel and custom kernel

      (and yes, the client is a win98 box)

      --
      --- polarbear
  13. Packaging by Signal+11 · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure whether this is the best forum to address this.. but I'm always alittle miffed about how the initial release of most software is in the form of a tarball. This is fine - I know how to use them. My problem is that alot of stuff under RH6 and other distros use RPM, or dpkg, or other such utilities. That makes life difficult for me, because then I need to uninstall the old package (making sure to backup the config files) and then install the tar. If I later get the packaged release (usually a few weeks later), then I gotta do that all over again! Man... it's times like these I wish linux was alittle more standardized for some things. Packaging should not be this difficult.

    --

    1. Re:Packaging by Xemu · · Score: 2
      ....the initial release of most software is in the form of a tarball. ... My problem is that alot of stuff under RH6 and other distros use RPM, or dpkg, or other such utilities. ... Packaging should not be this difficult.


      It is only difficult for the browsing-impaired unwashed masses. On the Samba website, you have the option of downloading both RedHat and Debian packages for the new samba release.

      They're on the Samba FTP site, too. Gee.

      --
      Tell your friends about xenu.net
    2. Re:Packaging by cehf2 · · Score: 1

      you can always untar the samba source, cd packaging/Redhat and then read README, you can then build the rpm for your computer and install the rpm. This worked very well on my machine

    3. Re:Packaging by Bastian · · Score: 1

      "The philosophy is laugh in the face of danger. Oops, wrong one. 'Do it yourself.' That's it." -linus

    4. Re:Packaging by DaveHowe · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure whether this is the best forum to address this.. but I'm always alittle miffed about how the initial release of most software is in the form of a tarball. This is fine - I know how to use them. My problem is that alot of stuff under RH6 and other distros use RPM, or dpkg, or other such utilities. That makes life difficult for me, because then I need to uninstall the old package (making sure to backup the config files) and then install the tar.
      Hmm. RPMs are wonderful things - precompiled, ready-to-run executables in a container that allows the end-user to install it simply. Tarballs, by contrast, are just compressed blocks of source with a make script and are much harder to use
      That said, tarballs were around long before RPMS, and there are still some distros out there that can't support RPM - but there aren't any that can't do tarball, plus the commercial Unixen (like HP) use a different system again. It is much easier to do it ONCE as a tarball, than five or six different ways for five or six different systems.

      If I later get the packaged release (usually a few weeks later), then I gotta do that all over again! Man... it's times like these I wish linux was a little more standardized for some things. Packaging should not be this difficult.
      I suspect at some point RPM will become the default - but for the moment, tarball is easier for the writers (if not the users). But that said, why are you installing the RPM over the top? once you get the tarball up and running, it must be easier to leave it than to de-install and re-install just so to have the pretty packet version rather than the homespun.... although I agree it makes life easier in the long run if you upgrade with another RH CD.
      --

      --
      -=DaveHowe=-
    5. Re:Packaging by ucblockhead · · Score: 2

      What would really be nice is some sort of way to fake RPM into thinking that the new tarball you just compiled and installed was something installed through RPM. Perhaps some sort of file list that comes with the tarball that could be sent to the rpm command. In other words, a way to tell rpm "I just installed this myself, here's what it looks like".

      It is really nice having a nice rpmized version installed because you don't have to remember things like what files make up the program.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    6. Re:Packaging by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I was going to make an RPM (or try to) of it but since it didn't work for me I didn't bother. I'll have to wait til someone else makes one that will work and save teaching myself how to make RPM's for another project.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    7. Re:Packaging by Skweetis · · Score: 1

      I don't know if this is exactly what you had in mind, but you can use:

      rpm --tarbuild [tarball]

      to create a .rpm file from a tarball.

      Hope this helps.

    8. Re:Packaging by MrCreosote · · Score: 1

      Remember, Samba is not Linux specific. It is usable on all major *nix platforms, which do not support RPMs.

      Tarball is the packaging format usable by anyone running a *nix platform.

      --
      MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
    9. Re:Packaging by mpe · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure whether this is the best forum to address this.. but I'm always alittle miffed about how the initial release of most software is in the form of a tarball.

      That's becuase the tarball format is useable by the vast majority of people.

      My problem is that alot of stuff under RH6 and other distros use RPM, or dpkg, or other such utilities.

      Not everyone is using RH6 (or for that matter Linux). Even if they were maybe they want different settings from those Red Hat (or whoever) prefer.

      That makes life difficult for me, because then I need to uninstall the old package (making sure to backup the config files) and then install the tar. If I later get the packaged release (usually a few weeks later), then I gotta do that all over again!

      If you have the tarball what's stopping you building your own RPM? Also why do you need to install the program twice? (Especially when the publically available RPM is likely to have been compiled without CPU optimisation.)

  14. Samba Question??? (OT?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been playing with Samba for a while now, and tried to set up the "homes" stuff in the config, but without complete success.. What I'd *like* to be able to do is, from a Win98 box, give a password *and username*, so I can access the files in my own ~username dir. And the same for other people. The Win98 system is single user, so the default username which is passed to samba is not the same as my username, but I can't figure out how to get windows to prompt for a user (only pw). Help??

    1. Re:Samba Question??? (OT?) by bdow · · Score: 1

      You can delete the .pwl files in the c:\windows directory; that usually forces you to log on the next time. And if you do enter a password when you do log in, it'll ask you every time (which usually isn't what you want).

    2. Re:Samba Question??? (OT?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've done this before, but it was almost a year ago...

      IIRC, you can find the computer under Network Neighbourhood, right click on it, and choose an option like "Attach as...". It will then ask you for a username and password.

      You could also create a Win98 login for yourself (with the same username as the Samba box), leave the password blank, and use Tweak UI (it's somewhere on the Win98 CD, if you don't already have it installed) to set up an automatic login.

    3. Re:Samba Question??? (OT?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll have to try that when I get the chance... I don't want to have to log in, but the "attach as" might work

    4. Re:Samba Question??? (OT?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well these are the steps involved in doing what you're trying to do. If you're using win98, win98 sends encrypted passwords by default. You must enable encrypted passwords in Samba's config files. if you need help on that, email me (eris@cooper.edu) you can disable that feature of win98, you have to change a registry key. After correctly setting up both ends, under win95/win98 under explorer, you click on MAP NETWORK DRIVE (by default this icon is not in the toolbar, you have to enable the icon by going to View -> Folder Options -> View and check "Show Map Network Drive" using that, you simply click on Map Network Drive, select the drive, and for the path type in \\MACHINE_NAME\USERNAME where MACHINE_NAME is the name for the samba machine. and username is the username on that system, (as per configuration under the [homes] directive) You can email me if you want exact details

  15. I had problems with the RPM for Rh 6.0/6.1 by Larry+L · · Score: 1

    Im running Mandrake 6.0, based on Rh 6.0.

    When I got the RPM it didn't work properly, saying that it had an unresolved symbol in libreadline.

    I made myself an RPM from the SRPM and it works properly now.

    1. Re:I had problems with the RPM for Rh 6.0/6.1 by GreenK · · Score: 1

      I had this problem as well with Mandrake 6.1...

      I'm not exactly sure how to use SRPMS so I guess I'll wait for the Mandrake RPM...

    2. Re:I had problems with the RPM for Rh 6.0/6.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I had this problem as well with Mandrake 6.1... >I'm not exactly sure how to use SRPMS so I guess >I'll wait for the Mandrake RPM... its usually done like this rpm --rebuild file.src.rpm or rpm -i file.src.rpm then reading the file.spec file in /usr/src/redhat/SPECS directory to check for dependencies and then rpm -bb 'ing it

    3. Re:I had problems with the RPM for Rh 6.0/6.1 by Raven667 · · Score: 1

      Actually it can be pretty simple. Log in as root and run "rpm --rebuild package-1.2.3-4.src.rpm". It will untar the files (in /usr/src/$DISTRONAME/SOURCES) and compile (in /usr/src/$DISTRONAME/BUILD) them based on a script (in /usr/src/$DISTRONAME/SPECS). If the compile doesn't work right (like it doesn't use the Autoconf variables you want) just edit the spec file in ./SPECS and run "rpm -bb ./SPECS/packagename.spec" to build binary (bb) packages. Simple.

      --
      -- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
    4. Re:I had problems with the RPM for Rh 6.0/6.1 by Jimbo123 · · Score: 1

      Simple? I'm sorry did you read your post?
      I'll tell you what is simple.
      ./configure; make; make install

      and if ./configure defaults aren't your bag, you do ./configure --help and see what options you have. You don't need RPM, and this applies to every distributed peice of software for the linux platform. I really see no use for RPM at all.
      (you should see how easy adding stuff is in freebsd)

    5. Re:I had problems with the RPM for Rh 6.0/6.1 by GreenK · · Score: 1

      The reason I tend to stick to RPM is that fact that it knows where to put the whole asortted array of files. Some distributions expect files in certain places for other program to locate correctly. Just untarring a new program keeps everything in one spot. I know many include a make install sub section and that works okay. The problems really arise in administering the system. Maybe I want to upgrade or delete a package...

      Having an RPM installed is easy to move around. If I would use a make install script I would have problems later tracking down all the files to either delete/change or update.

    6. Re:I had problems with the RPM for Rh 6.0/6.1 by mpe · · Score: 1

      if ./configure defaults aren't your bag, you do ./configure --help and see what options you have. You don't need RPM, and this applies to every distributed peice of software for the linux platform. I really see no use for RPM at all.

      You probably want "./configure --help |less" in practice. This will work for any program supporting the GNU config program on various operating systems.

    7. Re:I had problems with the RPM for Rh 6.0/6.1 by Raven667 · · Score: 1

      Have the best of both worlds, use setup.sh it builds and RPM out of almost any GNU Autoconf based tarball. That way you can keep track of what you have installed, and where it is.

      --
      -- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
  16. How does 'mount' work now? by EXTomar · · Score: 1

    I haven't been able to my hands on this hot little item, but it occured to me that if the mount functionality has been changed, could one get these SMB shares to mount through 'automount'? I could never figure out how to get 'automount' to work with 'smbmount'.

    Does anyone have any ideas how to get this to work correctly?

    1. Re:How does 'mount' work now? by slashkitty · · Score: 2
      the new syntax is

      mount -t smbfs -o username=foo,password=bar //foo/test /data/test

      which seems to work better then the previous version... Though i do notice a delay now between when the comand completes and when the file system is actually mounted..

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    2. Re:How does 'mount' work now? by swingerman · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, when I try to get automount to work with smb filesystems, I get the following error messages in /var/log/messages:

      Nov 12 11:23:02 helsinki automount[10387]: attempting to mount entry /lsi-ou-server/c
      Nov 12 11:23:02 helsinki automount[10392]: cannot find mount method for filesystem smbfs

      My automount line looks like this:

      c -rw,fstype=smbfs,user=administrator,password='dele ted' "//lsi-ou-server/c$"

      Thanks for your help and all the wonderful Samba work!

  17. SRPM -- The only way to fly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously...SRPM, is the only way to go. I can't begin to describe how many RPM packages are just not quite right on any number of systems I work on. Grab the SRPM, compile it yourself, install, and Go! Worth the extra effort, IMHO.

  18. Identity Crisis... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forgive me for mentioning some shortcomings of /., but this is /. and not Freshmeat, though I suppose things could get confusing with the whole Andover deal. Why, in the rush to get 50 articles posted per day, is there the need to share when new packages get released? News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, not open-sourced software releases. The snowball that is slashdot is growing as it rolls down the hill...

    1. Re:Identity Crisis... by xrayspx · · Score: 1

      This is how Slashdot has been run since I can remember. In fact, seems like the new release of software posting has been slowing down if anything over the last year, even as posting in general has gone way up. It has not increased under Andover. I'm actually surprised at how little has changed. (availability/speed aside)

      --
      I like music
  19. Three Cheers for Samba! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1


    Samba is Great!

    Daily we transfer many gigabytes of mission critical data to our unix systems using Samba.

    Two years and many terrabytes later we have not lost of single bit.

    We've experimented with alternatives, such as:

    FTP (fast, but users hate it)
    NFS clients on PCs (pain to setup and maintain plus $$$ per client)
    Syntax (worst of the bunch, pain to set up, pain to administer and expensive)

    but nothing matches samba for speed, ease of instalation, maintainability, stability and interoperability with Windows95 and NT.

    If Bill was really serious about hurting nix, he would import those hard coding Ausies and put them to work on windows 3000.

    Speaking of windows, how well does Samba work with Windows 2000 and all that silly active directory garbage????? Right now Samba barely does domains, and domains will be going the way of the dodo bird in a year or two.

    Instead of chasing proprietary MS interfaces such as PDC/BDC and active directory, perhaps "the comunity" should come up with an alternative, open directory service.

    Yikes, I'm rambling. Back on track:

    Three Cheers for Samba!

  20. It would be nice if it would work with Frontpage. by 1010011010 · · Score: 1

    Before you flame me, let me explain. The company I work for hosts Frontpage sites on NT (by necessity, not choice). We would like to use NAS for the NT Servers as we do for all the Unix servers, to increase relability and simplify backups. But Frontpage makes extensive use of ACLs which Samba either ignores entirely or does not support correctly. Mapping ACLs to unix bit permissions is, when you think of it, both highly limiting and kind of retarded. There is no way to cover NT ACL functionality with Unix bitmask permissions.

    I'd like to know when Samba will really support ACLs. I wouldn't care if it faked them using DBM files, if it used Solaris native ACLs, strange .dot directory schemes, or whatever. As long as it worked (read: worked with NT/IIS/FP).

    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
  21. Re:Can it send userlist to Win9x 4 user level shar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No. See http://bstc.net/~brian/docs/ for a workaround

  22. SMB Network Password Expirations by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    My biggest problem with Samba at the moment is I don't get notified when my password is about to expire on the network, so it often ends up getting expired since I tend to boot in to Windows less often than the expiration time (Around 6 months.) I'd be great if 1) Samba would warn me when my network password is about to expire and 2) let me change it so I don't have to boot into Windows at all.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  23. Re:Identity Crisis...(OFFTOPIC) by Thrakkerzog · · Score: 1

    It's news isn't it?

    Plus, it seems that Rob thinks it's cool, so it gets mentioned. That's how the site got started, and how it is run today.

    Live with it.

  24. It works for only so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then smb freaks out, here read about it here on deja: http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=541336693&CONTEXT =942351308.1038417996&hitnum=4 Do a search for 1014 on linux mandrake mailing list to see how unsupported this distro is.

    1. Re:It works for only so long by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I couldn't get 2.0.6 to work either from RPM or source under Mandrake 6.1. It broke things so I was forced to revert to 2.0.5a. It seemed to be an error w/ the readline library although I didn't investigate much. Anyone else have this problem or find a fix?

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  25. What to do with a T1... by macdaddy · · Score: 1
    I have a T1, need suggestions for it's use. E-mail me with suggestions

    Well let's see...

    Multiple Linux Distrobution mirror (like I'm doing with 4 PPC distros and a T3)

    Samba mirror

    Kernel.org mirror

    HOWTO site

    Public Quake server!!

    or

    mirror all of your favorite **Pron** sites!

  26. why would you want the RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Due to crypto export restrictions, the RPMs don't contain SSL support (you don't run SAMBA without SSL support, do you?). You have to compile the source yourself to get it (as well as a host of other goodies).

    I still compile a lot of source code (everything from aspell to ImageMagick, but particularly the packages associated with encryption - apache, curl, lynx, php, samba, and ssh) because of the options (or lack thereof) in the RPMs.

    1. Re:why would you want the RPM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always download the source rpm and add the --with-ssl option to the spec file. Unfortunately noone but samba supports ssl, and so it doesn't allow secure file serving to windows.

    2. Re:why would you want the RPM? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Due to crypto export restrictions, the RPMs don't contain SSL support (you don't run SAMBA without SSL support, do you?).

      Unlikely in the case of an RPM put together by the Samba team and on the main FTP site. More likely becuase the SSL support is "experimental".

  27. Re: Identity Crisis. I thought we got over this. by Cardinal · · Score: 1

    Alas, I was looking over the comments and thinking "Wow, finally the people moaning about software updates on Slashdot seem to have died off", only to find this post.

    Somebody made this complaint last time a software update was posted on Slashdot, and it bugged me. And lo and behold, somebody did it again, and it still bugs me. Here's the gist of what I told the last guy.

    Slashdot is News, so says the title.gif. :) Every now and then, perhaps once or twice every few weeks, one software update gets passed on to Slashdot. This is to be compared to the 118 items currently on freshmeat for the last three days alone.

    Coming from the other side, Freshmeat currently has exactly one post that isn't a software update that is also on Slashdot, the XMMS Plugin Contest.

    No matter how you look at it, that's a very small margin, one I think is forgivable by even the harshest critic. I mean, it's not like there are categorical criteria to Slashdot submissions. If we can talk about national-security threatening Furbys, then why can't we mention a new version of an ubercool software suite?

    Your options are simple. Continue reading Slashdot and cope with the occasional version update, continue reading Slashdot and scream in agony at the occasional version update, stop reading Slashdot, or download the source code and make your own site completely devoid of such daemon spawn.

  28. Re: Identity Crisis. I thought we got over this. by TeddyR · · Score: 1

    Not only that... but Samba is one of the few "mission critical" apps that affects LOTs of netizens/networks... (The others that qualify are Bind and Sendmail)... So.. it makes sense for it to also appear on Slashdot....

    --

    --
    Time is on my side
  29. Debian package? by RelliK · · Score: 1

    So when will we see a package for Debian 2.1?

    --
    ___
    If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
  30. Blockstackers says it's layer 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Application layer? Isn't it layer 6, Presentation? Only link to Blockstackers if it has acurate data.

  31. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why pay for a BSD clone when you could just run BSD?

    1. Re:Who cares by wchin · · Score: 1

      Why pay for a BSD clone when you could just run BSD?

      You could do some of your own research. See Apple's Mac OS X Server Product Page. Now, you might not want to run it, but you should be able to see why some other people might want to run it. Just in case, here are some keywords:

      • Apple File Sharing
      • Macintosh Manager
      • WebObjects
      • Cocoa OO Frameworks
      • Apple Hardware Support
      • Supported Quicktime Streaming
      • NetBoot Server for MacOS
      • ISV app support (especially in comparison to *BSD or Linux on PowerPC)
      • MacOS compatibility environment (w/o CPU emulation)

      These are all above and beyond the fact that it has a Mach kernel with BSD 4.4isms and for the most part plays nicely with other UNIX variants.

  32. Autofs works! Yippee! by compwiz · · Score: 1

    Woo hoo. smbmount will finally work with the kernel automounter.

  33. Re:It would be nice if it would work with Frontpag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ACLs are also holding me back somewhat. With proper support for setting them on files from the NT security dialog, I'd be able to replace about 20 NT4 boxes with Linux boxes running Samba.

    I'm currently checking out the POSIX ACLs for Linux patches in hope that Samba will start "talking" to that code soon.

    It's either Linux+Samba+ACLs, or W2K. Shudder.

  34. NTDOM integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When's Samba going to re-integrate all that's been done on the NTDOM side? Just curious..

  35. Re:It would be nice if it would work with Frontpag by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 1

    HP and Northrop Grummond (sp?) have donated some code to help with this. Needs a little work though. I'm targeting 2.0.7 (2.0.6 oops bugs notwithstanding :-) for this.

    Jeremy Allison,
    Samba Team.

  36. But not on glibc2.1 by BrianS · · Score: 1

    The smbwrapper subsystem code, smbsh, will not compile under glibc2.1. So Linux will have to wait.

    Compiling smbwrapper/smbw.c with -fpic
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1429: warning: `struct stat64' declared inside parameter list
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1429: warning: its scope is only this definition or declaration, which is probably not what you want.
    smbwrapper/smbw.c: In function `stat64_convert':
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1431: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1432: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1433: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1434: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1435: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1436: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1437: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1438: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1439: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1440: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1441: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1442: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1443: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c: At top level:
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1448: warning: `struct dirent64' declared inside parameter list
    smbwrapper/smbw.c: In function `dirent64_convert':
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1450: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1451: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1452: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    smbwrapper/smbw.c:1453: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
    make: *** [smbwrapper/smbw.po] Error 1

    --
    -- I can't say enough in 120 chars!
  37. RPMs available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RedHat recognized the importance of this new version of Samba by making RPMS available immediately after the official release. You can get them on the latest release of RedHat RawHide, the development series of RedHat. Note that these are not official production RPMS, but should work fine. RPMS for bind 8.2.2pl3 are also available in the same directory.

  38. Re:Can it send userlist to Win9x 4 user level shar by mpe · · Score: 1

    No. See http://bstc.net/~brian/docs/ for a workaround

    Note that this is only for registry wizards. Don't even think of showing this to the average end user :)