samba 4: a new configuration system?
rlillard at sonic.net
Fri Jun 24 01:15:15 GMT 2005
Andrew Tridgell wrote:
> > I hope not. I realize I am "old school", and I fully realize
> > I am NOT a decision maker here, but dammit what's so bloody
> > wrong about flat text files that can be modified with "vi" or
> > *emacs*? We don't need to turn Samba in *)&$^%& windows.
> The decision on config file format hasn't been made yet, but perhaps
> you can derive some comfort from knowing that the tool 'ldbedit' will
> work if we do change to a ldb format. That tool works a bit like vipw,
> in that it allows you to edit database records (or the entire database
> if you like) in your favourite editor.
> For example:
> export EDITOR=emacs
> ldbedit -H config.ldb
> would edit the entire db in emacs.
Thanks for listening, guys. I can see that you would probably have
converged on this solution without my rant. A "vipw" type solution
would be fine as it can be locked to satisfy the database proponents
and yet stored in a form which can be easily validated when saved.
It is the ability to see what is really in the system configuration
file and to correct it by hand if need be, that I very much want to
see preserved. For this reason the back-end file format is important.
Over the years, I have seen tdb files that were corrupted and I
had no certain means of knowing what was *really* in them. It's
not a good feeling when Samba is down and a lot of people are
looking at you to get it up. Think "performance anxiety". ;-)
Keep up the good work,
Now back to lurking for me,
More information about the samba-technical