Proposed paths for Samba 4.0

Sam Liddicott sam at
Tue Jul 12 11:16:23 MDT 2011

On 23/06/11 11:06, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 18:39 +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
>> Am 21.06.2011 18:26, schrieb Stefan (metze) Metzmacher:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>> What exactly should --enable-fhs do?
>>>> Which paths should it change, what should they be changed to, and what
>>>> priority order (enable-fhs, gnu options, with options) should apply?
>>> I'll propose some patches in the next days.
>> Here's my branch...
>> I'll send some more details about it later...
> Thanks,
> I look forward to seeing the details.
> One concern that I have is that we are back to having
> users/distributions able to specify very many individual paths.
> If we want uniform behaviour from our users and distributors, then it
> would be worth reducing the number of things that they can set, and that
> we have to test.  That's why I did --with-sockets-dir for example, which
> allows us to add more sockets without adding more parameters that
> distributions have to keep up with.

I understand your point, but the most common types of patches I've seen 
by packagers are to modify paths.

You can't actually reduce the number of paths that can be set when the 
source is available; but you can reduce the amount of control you have 
over how well it's done by taking away the easy options.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list