SWAT features

[Tarjei Huse]

man, 14,.03.2005 kl. 10.18 -0700, skrev John H Terpstra:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 08:32, Deryck Hodge wrote:
> > Hi, all
Hi, all.


> Following initial enthusiastic response to the Wizard we began receiving a lot 
> of criticism that SWAT is not secure. This resulted in many Debian and 
> Madrake Linux users effectively putting the kybosh on SWAT. Red Hat never 
> installed it by default, etc. there was not a lot of incentive to keep 
> working on a tool that has so little real traction. SWAT is lacking for an 
> active maintainer and has little to no community interest.

> Our efforts at documenting SWAT in the Samba-HOWTO-Collection has not seen a 
> lot of gain. My recommendation is that we kill SWAT and remove it from the 
> code tree.

I care little for SWAT, but what I have missed with Samba in the past is
suggestions for those trying to develop admin-ui's on how to do this.
What you should provide is a minimum of documentation on how some things
should be documented. 

Also an interface like Postfix postconf[1] would be nice - preferably
with an api as well. 

1. From the manual:
The postconf(1) command prints the actual value of parameter (all known
parameters by default)  one  parameter  per line, changes its value, or
prints other information about the Postfix mail system.


Tarjei




> In the Samba-Guide the recommendation is made to use the 'testparm' facility 
> to validate smb.conf. SWAT calls the same smb.conf management libraries that 
> testparm does. The Samba-Guide recommends maintaining a fully commented 
> (documented) smb.conf.master file and that the smb.conf file be generated by 
> executing:
> 
> # testparm -s smb.conf.master > /etc/samba/smb.conf
> 
> This results in an smb.conf that is optimised in the same way as SWAT does, 
> but provides a source smb.conf.master file in which people can maintain and 
> keep the documentation/notes that make them happy.
> 
> I see the 'testparm' facility as a replacement for SWAT in so far as file 
> optimisation is concerned.
> 
> >
> > My question then -- what do people use SWAT for?  Is it primarily a
> > web-based front end for editing smb.conf?  An entry point for
> > documentation?  A gui for setting up Samba without knowing much about
> > smb.conf?  Also, what features do you like most/least?  And what's
> > missing from SWAT in your opinion?
> 
> I'd like to know what people use SWAT for today. How many really do want/use 
> it? Who knows!
> 
> There is a document in the Samba-4 code tree called swat2.txt that sets out 
> thoughts collated by Vance Lankhaar and was last editted in July 2004. I am 
> interested to see what responses there are to your request.
> 
> >
> > Thanks for the input.  Cheers,
> >
> > deryck
> 
> - John T.