Releasing Samba 4.0 RC1?

Ricky Nance ricky.nance at weaubleau.k12.mo.us
Mon Aug 13 01:17:17 MDT 2012


Geza, make sure you have the right mount options in fstab and also the
right headers for ACL's I had a similar problem initially, but once I got
those fixed up, all went well. See the samba4 howto wiki for more info on
this.

Good luck,
Ricky

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Gémes Géza <geza at kzsdabas.hu> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>  (TLDR: I want us to think about if we should release Samba 4.0 before or
>> after SDC and the MS plugfest).
>>
>>
>> Over the past couple of months now, I have been releasing a Samba 4.0
>> beta every two weeks, as we proceed on the path to a release candidate.
>> Indeed, while I can't find the schedule right now, it called for the
>> next release (Tuesday Aug 14) to be RC1!
>>
>> Now that I have your attention, I'm not seriously suggesting pulling an
>> RC next week, but I do want to discuss what we will do to get to making
>> an RC of Samba 4.0, and how that might fit into other major development
>> effort that is ongoing.
>>
>> The background is that since Beta 2, s3fs has been the default and
>> hasn't caused major issues.  This was consisdered the single biggest
>> blocking issue.  That said, I am not totally happy with it, as the ACL
>> handling needs work: we set ACLs during provision that are sent to the
>> client, but not actually honoured by Samba.  I'm working to fix this.
>>
>> There is of course the series of bugs attached to
>> https://bugzilla.samba.org/**show_bug.cgi?id=8622<https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8622>but sadly most of these
>> have not seen much attention since being filed (and don't seem to be
>> bothering our production users).
>>
>> That covers the AD side of the house, but clearly there is a massive
>> development effort ongoing for the SMB3 support.  This is really
>> important, as it not only emphasises that Samba 4.0 is a major leap
>> forward across all of our many parts, but it also gives us a chance to
>> get SMB3 (even without many of the optional features) into the hands of
>> our users.
>>
>> My question on SMB3 is: Are we at or nearing a point in that development
>> effort where it is logical to pause and release?
>>
>> We also still need help with manpages, documentation of new smb.conf
>> options.
>>
>> Finally, this brings us to timing, and the challenges and opportunities
>> presented by the upcoming SDC event and plugfest at Microsoft.
>>
>> We could release RC1 before SDC
>> http://snia.org/events/**storage-developer2012/plugfest<http://snia.org/events/storage-developer2012/plugfest>(starts 16 Sept)
>> and the Microsoft AD plugfest (ends 28 Sept).  However, then if we find
>> issues (and that is the express purpose of such events) we will need to
>> go via the full bug+patch process for all of them.
>>
>> Or we could release RC1 after both events, but that starts to be early
>> October, and that seems like a long delay, and I for one will be pretty
>> exhausted after jet-lag and 2 weeks of travel, putting any RC1 into mid
>> October at the earliest.  That in turn makes it harder to get a release
>> actually made in 2012.
>>
>> The other disadvantage is that while conferences are a great goal to aim
>> at for releases, the quick-and-dirty development style (needed to
>> isolate issues quickly) may simply mean we either have patches in the
>> tree that are not totally ready (simply because they were prepared under
>> pressure) or we have a long delay as we wait for folks to work though
>> their backlog.
>>
>> This timing also affects our downstream distributions, so I would
>> appreciate any views from that direction as well.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andrew Bartlett
>>
>>  IMHO the biggest (most probable source for possible user grief) issue is
> s3fs behavior in handling policies. To my experiments (I've just switched
> our production network from 3 to 4 in the weekend) not only does it
> prohibit setting policies initially but after manually given full access to
> Domain Admins, I was able to set up some policies. The problem which
> persist is inability to change the ACLs for policies. I think will give
> ntvfs a try.
>
> Cheers
>
> Geza Gemes
>



--


More information about the samba-technical mailing list