samldb and associated patches

Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer mdw at
Mon Oct 4 05:51:15 MDT 2010


Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-10-03 at 12:23 +0200, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>> ah - sorry you've started already an autobuild trial. Since I've
>> launched one only about the basic patches (const&  types fixing).
>> Regarding the PDC name changes: assure yourself against Windows. If you
>> have no replication partner you get "" back.
> Sure, but why replace it with an 'only ""' implementation until you
> write the code to return the correct value.  What harm was the current
> code doing - it can't be any less correct than returning "" always.
> What do you think the correct implementation should be, or should we
> just ignore this as a artefact of a long forgotten part of the NT4
> behaviour and leave with just "" as the safest thing?
Well, I let the decision up to you. We can let it as it is, but it's for 
sure not correct. I've proven that on a Windows system without any 
replication partners "" is returned. I've not tested the other cases 
yet. I (according to the MS-SAMR doc) think that it will be the name of 
another DC but it's never DC's name itself.
> Anyway, just to understand what happened last night:
> My autobuild failed (for some reason I've not yet determined), but you
> grabbed my proposed tree from my autobuild area, and successfully pushed
> an autobuild including those?
> That's quite fine, I just wanted to ensure I understood what happened.
The "urgent_replication" test needed some additional patch to allow the 
non-standard system flags:;a=commitdiff;h=4e8206eb4c74de05aa0657fc36ad1569b96a8900

I've added this and then I've performed the push. I hope you are fine 
with it.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list