idra at samba.org
Wed Nov 22 13:12:42 GMT 2006
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 08:00 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 07:20:14PM -0500, simo wrote:
> > This is the problem, as we are going to change the interface with a
> > completely different thing why keeping the old way of doing things, we
> > know we have some things we should improve, and this may be a good time
> > for it.
> > For example valid users is basically a list of SIDs internally (anybody
> > said ACL ?) are you going to keep that as a list of names?
> Yes, I'll keep it that way. You always have the share
> secdesc on top of it.
This the point, why keeping 2 conflicting access control mechanisms?
Why not merging them? As we change the interface we can also change
behavior without backward compatibility problems, and fix problems we
> > a good enough directory model, but we may as well want to expose data
> > via other directory models.
> Sure. But this should be doable I think. We already have
> some samba3 mapping layers in samba4 for other things, so if
> we agree the basic registry model is sane for smb.conf, this
> should be presentable in a compatible way in samba4 as well.
Oh well, sure, but it would be a bit silly to introduce something new
now and then have to emulate it in samba4 to make it compatible with
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: idra at samba.org
More information about the samba-technical