[Samba] Given up on Fedora Ubuntu is 1000-folder simpler

[Christian PERRIER]

Quoting Rob Shinn (morgan at tuxedo.darktech.org):

> I've used both and the packages themselves are basically the same.
> A particular Ubuntu stable release package of Samba is more likely
> to be more current than the Debian stable release, but that's a
> result of policy differences, not technical ones.  The source for
> the packages is the same:  the Debian package repos.  The main
> difference is that Ubuntu might add a patch or two that hasn't made
> it into the stable Debian package yet, but other than that, they are
> the same.

Differences now are only on packaging. The most proeminent differences
(http://patches.ubuntu.com/s/samba/samba_2:3.4.3-2ubuntu1.patch)
I can see between the 3.4.3-2 packages (Ubuntu doesn't have 3.4.4
yet):

+    + debian/smb.conf:
+      - Comment out the default [homes] share, and add a comment about "valid users = %s" 
+        to show users how to restrict access to \\server\username to only username.
+      - Set 'usershare allow guests', so that usershare admins are allowed to create
+        public shares in additon to authenticated ones.
+      - add map to guest = Bad user, maps bad username to gues access.

-->so, mostly differences in the default smb.conf
   Here, I still prefer sticking with the policy we had in recent
   years by being as close as possible to upstream defaults

+    + debian/control:
+      - Don't build against ctdb.

--> Ubuntu packages are built without clustering support. Their call..:-)


+    + debian/rules:
+      - Enable "native" PIE hardening.
+      - Add BIND_NOW to maximize benefit of RELRO hardening.

--> These, I should discuss with Steve Langasek

+    + Add ufw integration:
+      - Created debian/samba.ufw.profile.

--> This is a consequence of Ubuntu using ufw by default

Interestingly, the biggest part of the diff between Ubuntu package and
Debian ones is made of security patches that aren't used any more. So,
in short, they have cruft..:)