idra at samba.org
Tue Aug 12 16:39:05 GMT 2008
On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 10:21 -0700, Douglas VanLeuven wrote:
> Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 07:43:09AM -0400, simo wrote:
> >> If we salvage the "default" option we can still have great flexibility
> >> w/o too much pain. Moving to a per range allocator would make things
> >> simpler to understand from a configuration POV, although it would
> > Sorry, but here I disagree. Having multiple allocators is
> > bad from my point of view. I don't understand the scenario
> > that you want to cover with it.
> I was at sea when you started this thread or I would have commented
> earlier. I'm unclear about one implication.
> What about the case of idmap_ad which is not writable but desired to be
> the default with a tdb backend for local accounts each with different
> uid/gid ranges?
> Is the new system going to work for that scenario?
one more thing thinking about this case.
With the new code if we set idmap_ad to be the default, then we will
have no allocator ? In this case we will not be able to generate IDs for
the BUILTIN SIDs we currently generate automatically?
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Senior Software Engineer at Red Hat Inc. <ssorce at redhat.com>
More information about the samba-technical