SYSKEY, TNG freeze, 2.0.x->TNG merge and other thoughts

[Jean Francois Micouleau]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Nicolas Williams wrote:

>  - SYSKEY
> 
>    I'm now for it as Luke's LDAP/NIS/other name services argument is a
>    winning one. The /etc/shadow approach should still be supported and
>    used where no such cleartext protocols are in use.

Everyone has a point of view :)

>  - TNG code freeze
> 
>    Don't do it yet; wait a few more weeks. So much progress is taking
>    place that it seems worthwhile to wait a bit longer.

NO. freeze Now ! I know Luke well enough to say that if you leave him just
a week, he will have a new idea he'll want to code. Of course if you have
spent more than an afternoon on his roof then you know him better than I
:-)

>  - 2.0.x->TNG merge
> 
>    This should be easy, actually: take smbd code from 2.0.x as is, drop
>    all the MSRPC code save for the loopback to MSRPC daemons code.

totally unrealistic. You know why ? Because I've done it. And give up. And
felt some much depressed than I was close to install win95 on my machines.

Merging TNG in HEAD is not much realistic. I also tried, still have a
tar.gz of the result somewhere.

The only viable path is to extract features of TNG in diff files and
incorporate by hand in HEAD.

>    TNG seems to be much further ahead on the MSRPC issues, which means
>    there's no merge to do from 2.0.x there.

wrong. the smb/rpc layer (the prs_struct structure) is much cleaner in
HEAD. Some RPC functions have been rewritten in HEAD and must be kept.

>    Same thing with utilities such as rpcclient, though smbclient and
>    nmblookup might be best taken from 2.0.x.

rpcclient yes.

> I think it's safe to say that TNG is so jam-packed with good ideas that
> it will become the next Samba. But then, that's just a view from the
> sidelines... others may differ on that...

it's also jam-packed with unstability and non-portability. And stability
and portability are much more important than new features.

	J.F.