samba-tng-alpha-1.0.tar.gz

[Aaron D. Brooks]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Colby [mailto:kevinc at grainsystems.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 3:50 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list SAMBA-NTDOM
> Subject: Re: samba-tng-alpha-1.0.tar.gz
> 
> 
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > 
> > i did that with the entire set of entries in /etc/group.
> > this could be done with a script.
> > i am considering adding a syntax "*=*_G" to the domainnamenap code.
> 
> Since this sort of fix almost seems unavoidably neccessary (_tons_
> of existing installations use identical user and group names),
> it would be nice to have a way of fixing this at the NT<->unix
> name mapping level.  Sure, we can write scripts to mass change
> group names, but then you've got dozens of different OSes to
> write them for.
> 
> A mass map mechanism could be a relatively easy way of accomodating
> this without redesigning the NT user/group namespace or requiring
> new Samba installations to do mass group name changes.
> 
> 	- Kevin Colby
> 	  kevinc at grainsystems.com

	Hmmm. Idea. _Maybe_ there are some seriously stupid problems with
this thought but I couldn't think of anything in our setup here which
would cause problems. Maybe not so else where, so people speak up...

	What if the UN*X groups were translated into NT groups by changing
their names with an appended string such as "_NTGROUP". (e.g. UN*X group
"root" becomes "root_NTGROUP", "staff" becomes "staff_NTGROUP" and so
on.) This still allows us to do macro substitutions in the smb.conf file
such as @%g_NTGROUP and _maybe_, just _maybe_, all of the world could be
very happy. Or not. 

	I could be overlooking something very, very basic and deserve to
be flogged. Just a thought. 

-Aaron

P.S. On second thought, rather than "_NTGROUP", I think "_SMBGROUP" would
be more accurate.

+------->
Aaron D. Brooks,  765 . 998 . 5168
Computing Systems Resource Manager
Taylor University,  CSS Department
abrooks [SHIFT"2"] css.tayloru.edu