kill security=share and security=server

[simo]

On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 12:45 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 03:42:13PM -0500, simo wrote:
> > Why should we care to that level ?
> 
> To try to not break people with previously working configs.
> 
> > I am a big fan of not breaking configurations that "work", but share and
> > smb2 are at odds, and we are just faking stuff at this point.
> 
> Well this is why I like the proposed patch. It removes
> all trace of share level security for SMB1 and SMB2 and
> gets rid of that old albatros once and for all - in a
> way that doesn't break any existing configs :-).

If I understood chris message correctly, you are ""not breaking"
smb.conf but you are braking share level security for smb1, so you are
breaking actual use cases.

I'd prefer to limit security=share to smb1 without breaking how the
server works in that case.

This is equally compatible, as secuirty=share will still works with smb1
as it did before, so nothing breacks with it.

If the user wants to use new features (smb2) then it will have to change
the config. This is perfectly reasonable to me.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>