Deprecate the 'socket address' parameter and remove special handling?

[simo]

On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 12:06 +1000, Dewayne Geraghty wrote: 
> I'm all for increasing simplicity, but isn't the purpose of "socket
> address=x.y.z.t" to enable samba to respond/listen to a specific address,
> particularly where there are many aliases on an interface. And the
> "interface=" statement to specify which of the interfaces, or ip/masks that
> a particular samba instance will service?
> 
> Currently we run authentication services (heimdal/openldap) in one virtual
> machine(vm), and samba3 in another. I plan to insert samba4 onto the
> authentication server (no fileservices) and retain the samba3 server, and
> both running on the same physical machine. I'm concerned, with the removal
> of "socket address", will this approach be inhibited?

Dewayne,
as pointed out in the previous emails, you can put ip address in the
'interfaces' parameter, and then use 'bind interfaces only = yes' to
limit samba to talk on those addresses only.

socket address is simply redundant and can be implemented by the above
options which is why we want to remove it.

Simo.

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