nmbd does not start without smbd (fwd)

[Andrew Tridgell]

> > in that case I think the solution is very simple. Delete that code!
> > I did that once before, I wonder why it was put back?
> 
> because if we want to b a pdc...  'ang about...  methinks you might be
> right.  ok, what kind of usernames have been observed?
> 
> sure, wthis could be deleted but only if usernames of, say
> "TRUST_ACCOUNT$" are never observed except if the response to these is
> expected to be the same.

I've no idea what you are talking about! I can't even parse that
sentence :)

> i _think_ the SAMLOGON response expects to contain the sid

umm

> (ok, there's _one_ of these UDPs that expects a SID)

really? which one?

our code doesn't send a SID in response to any of these, so if one of
them does expect a SID then we must have a bug.

one of them does _receive_ a SID (which we currently ignore without
any apparent ill effect) but none _send_ a SID.

so, do we delete that code?

> i checked the cvsweb diffs (all of them) and it's been there all the time.

you're right. I mustn't have ever committed it, or I lost the change
in the great tea trolley disaster of '98.