CVS update: samba/source/include

Rafal Szczesniak mimir at
Thu Jan 8 12:46:09 GMT 2004

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 01:18:23PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:53:41AM +0000, Rafal Szczesniak wrote:
> > > I think it's not only for an interim stage. Why not leave tdbsam at that? I've
> > > used the same procedure for the group mapping stuff in pdb.
> > 
> > Because when trust passwords are stored in SAM, it's easier to handle SAM
> > replication either when Samba acts as NT-compatible BDC or Samba BDC. The
> > former would use pdb calls to replicate passwords and the latter could
> > enable backend-specific replication e.g. ldap when it is your favour.
> pdb_ldap is the whole reason for this stuff. tdbsam is not easily replicable
> currently, although it could be made to be. My path would really be to get an
> easy pdb passthrough frontend to the secrets.tdb and then concentrate on
> pdb_ldap and the favourite sql backend of your choice :-)

That's almost exactly the way I was thinking about. Your proposition sounds
even better because skipping tdbsam implementation now, in favour of simple callbacks
to secrets.c, allows to focus on pdb_ldap and other 'advanced' backends even sooner.
Looks like we have well thought compromise. Another task, which I think should
be considered, is replication of tdbsam (perhaps only via rpc calls...).

Rafal Szczesniak 
Samba Team member

More information about the samba-technical mailing list