samba-tool command structure

Jelmer Vernooij jelmer at
Tue Aug 9 16:28:01 MDT 2011

Hi Giampaolo,

On 09/08/11 19:57, Giampaolo Lauria wrote:
> Hi,
> I am working on redesigning the samba-tool command to follow the following
> format:
> samba-tool<object>  <action>  <parameters>  <options>
Thanks for looking at fixing the hierarchy for samba-tool. I agree it's 
a bit of a mess at the moment :)

I think it makes sense to use the structure you suggest  for some of the 
subcommands of samba-tool. I don't think it's a good idea for all of 
them, and would make samba-tool harder to use if we are strict about this.

> With that in mind, I've come up with the following structure for the
> top-level objects and their actions. Please keep in mind that some of the
> current action names need to be changed to reflect an action.
> Also, we are thinking of integrating the "provision" command into
> samba-tool under domain as: samba-tool domain provision
> Your comments are greatly appreciated.
> delegation
>          add-service
>          del-service
>          for-any-protocol
>          for-any-service
>          show
What sort of services/protocols would these be, the srvsvc kind?
> diag
>          dbcheck
>          ldapcmp
>          testparm
These are much more discoverable as top-level commands, hiding them 
under "diag" just makes them harder to use I think. "diagnosis" doesn't 
really cover some of the uses of testparm, such as retrieving the value 
of a single current smb.conf option.

Perhaps the general management of smb.conf options could be moved into a 
separate subcommand, and we can just have a simple "samba-tool check" 
that covers both the "check" part of testparm as well as e.g. things 
like checking the consistency of the database.

>   domain
>          exportkeytab
>          join
>          level
>          passwordsettings
>          vampire
Wouldn't exportkeytab and vampire be machine-specific rather than domain 



More information about the samba-technical mailing list