[PATCH] sam backend parameter
abartlet at samba.org
Thu Oct 3 11:26:00 GMT 2002
Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 08:06, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > jra at dp.samba.org wrote:
> > > Let just remove the multi-domain stuff for now and try
> > > and get 3.0 in a shippable state.
> > The 'new SAM' stuff is not being proposed for 3.0! Certainly not yet,
> > we have a *lot* of work to do, before it gets there!
> > Also, *please* don't confuse that with the multi-backend stuff. That
> > has a very different purpose, and was not included in the new SAM design
> > for exactly the reasons people don't want it in passdb.
> > The use of multiple backends in passdb has acknowledged issues, and I'm
> > not particularly fussed if you feel it should not ship with this
> > functionality enabled. However, please do note that this *is* being
> > used at present, and cannot be 'just removed'. (We map our non-passdb
> > users into the system via this method). Volker has some solutions to
> > this issue however, which look very neat. I'll need to check if they
> > actually catch it all the cases.
> So let me understand:
> you say sam will not be in 3.0
I did not say that. I said that I have not yet proposed the SAM for
3.0. I will not propose it for 3.0 until it's ready.
> you see currently passdb has been made so that nobody like it and is not
I think the structure in the passdb code is OK. The mulibackend issues
are minor, and are quite well suited to inclusion in a module.
I'll let others comment on what is so broken about it (particularly
compared to 2.2) and how to fix it within the current constraints.
> but you also say we should not end up using a correct solution because
> you want to maintain the status quo?
'a correct solution'? I am working hard on the 'new SAM' stuff because
I believe it to be a 'correct solution'. I am also actively reviewing
proposed changes to passdb.
> We have to fix passdb or sam, just let decide on which one we should
> work on or go for a third way.
I've seen Volker's patches, and I think that passdb can be made to work
for the needs of 3.0, but it is messy. I believe the code as it
*currently stands* can support 'net rpc vampire', but will consult
volker more closely on this matter. I'm very impressed with voker's
work in doing many of the things that were not thought possible with
Of course I would much prefer we move directly to the 'new SAM' work,
but I'll see the guidance of the release manager on that point, when I
think the code is ready.
Andrew Bartlett abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net
More information about the samba-technical