Bug in nmbd_become_dmb.c (CVS 1.7 3.somehting) [patch]

[Simo Sorce]

I still think we _need_ to introduce a "server role" paramter, leaving
the other active for tuning, but so that new admins will not get mad to
have a decent configuration.

server role = share|server|member|PDC|BDC|ADS

or something like that.

Simo.

On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 23:20, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 03:08:52PM -0600, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Damjan "Zobo" Cvetko wrote:
> 
> > > I dont know if this is the rigth list for this..
> > > I'm using the latest samba 3.x. from CVS.. (because of the wins replication)
> > > I have it set up as master browser, but it wont register itself (to the WINS
> > > server running in the same nmbd) as DMB (WROKGROUP#1b..)
> 
> > Why not just set
> 
> > 	domain master = yes
> > 	domain logons = yes
> 
> > ?
> 
> > By not setting domain logons, you've created a box that Windows clients 
> > will believe to be a PDC but one that will not be listed in the DOMAIN#1c
> > list of addresses.
> 
> > >    /* Do the domain master names. */
> > > -  if(lp_server_role() == ROLE_DOMAIN_PDC)
> > > +  if (lp_domain_master() == True)
> > >    {
> 
> > I don't think i will commit this patch unless you can further convince me.
> 
> It's a change from Samba's previous behavior.
> 
> If there's ever anything else on the network that needs the #1b name, it
> will be broken by Samba registering the #1b name. Period.  It doesn't
> matter whether the option to enable this is called 'domain master = yes'
> or 'domain logons = yes'; if the user enables the corresponding setting
> in a domain with a preexisting PDC, it will break one way or the other.
> So changing the meaning of the option doesn't really protect against
> this, but it does break configurations that previously worked for people
> who need DMBs but don't need logon servers.
> 
> Much better, IMHO, would be to leave the code as it was in 2.2, but
> make sure 3.0's *documentation* strongly encourages using 'domain logons'
> instead of 'domain master'.  Granted, in all the cases I've seen,
> enabling 'domain logons' in addition to 'domain master' hasn't done any
> harm; but is it really worth gratuitiously breaking users' 2.2 configs to
> get this point across?
> 
> FWIW, this is the third time I've seen this issue come up with the 3.0
> alphas.
-- 
Simo Sorce    -  idra at samba.org
Samba Team    -  http://www.samba.org
Italian Site  -  http://samba.xsec.it