To release Samba 4.0 'as is'

Matthieu Patou mat at
Tue Nov 22 15:13:37 MST 2011

Hello Gemes,

On 22/11/2011 21:14, Gémes Géza wrote:
> See bellow:
> IMHO the user visible blocking bugs (missing features) can be grouped in
> the following groups:
> 1. Problems from the point of view of a Windows sysadmin:
>      a. FRS
I don't think it's a blocker for a stable release as soon as we have 
"something", for sure it's something nice to have but not a huge blocker.
>      b. Incomplete forest support (Could be explained: Roadmap for 4.x)
The target of a 4.0 is simple AD setup support, multiforest domain is 
neat but it can be understood that for a simple setup it's currently out 
of the scope.
>      c. File serving/printing (can be explained: This is just the AD
> part, for file/print: Samba3)
Although not critical, not having for AD domain when you have it 3.x 
with NT domain will seems strange. If we were using the file server of 
samba 3.x we would have the print server "for free".
> 2. Problems from the point of view of a *nix sysadmin:
>      a. The KDC is quite hard to manage (no per principal keytab export
> utility (I've wrote one, but it doesn't take spns into account)) (Today
> I'll start to try implementing (at least parts of) kadmin into Samba4)
We still have a way to export keytabs and even if it's suboptimal, do 
don't think it's a blocker.
>      b. Winbind is ignoring any msfu/rfc attributes for uid/gid (that
> makes having Samba4's winbind an undesirable solution for networks with
> existing *nix services) (Can be mitigated: Use samba3's winbind)

> 3. Common problems:
>      a. Fragility of schema extension operations
I think that for a 4.0 we should block by default the schema extension, 
so that people can't modify their schema "by mistake" and just people 
with the will to cope with possible side effect will be able to do so.
>      b. Incomplete support for adding/removing application partitions
> (for example integrating ISC DCP servers now officially supported LDAP
> backend, and lots of other custom applications)
Definitely not a blocker for 4.0
> This is just my very humble opinion, but I think, that releasing Samba4
> as it is now without a very clear BEWARE: MISSING FEATURES + POSSIBLE
> WORKAROUNDS + ROADMAP will not benefit the project, just generating lots
> of unhappy users.
> Cheers
> Geza


Matthieu Patou
Samba Team

More information about the samba-technical mailing list