who is the autoconf build for? (was Re: SYSTEM krb5 support matrix for Samba 4.0)

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at samba.org
Mon Jun 4 01:15:02 MDT 2012

On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 16:20 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:

> Thanks for that summary. This is very helpful!
> Let's see what the implications are (for the pure s3 file server
> build, something that is certainly used out there and will be for
> a while):
> The basis for the problems that we discuss is this:
> >>>>> There are systems out there that neither have a recent <<<<<
> >>>>> (enough) version of kerberos nor python available.     <<<<<

> So how can we make it possible or more easy for those other
> systems without recent python and krb5, to get to the goal
> of a full samba(3) build?

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, and I agree that where we
have one, we have the other.  That is, systems without python (or the
ability to install it) are unlikely to have a modern krb5 (or be
reasonable to install it).

It also seems to me that is is fundamentally also for these systems that we
maintain the autoconf build:  An older Unix, which wants a
self-contained (statically linked) Samba installed with minimal
disruption to the rest of the system for file sharing, needing only NTLM

So far I've not seen any comments back from our users who expect to use the
autoconf build, but this much I've gleaned from discussions I've had with
folks.  Is this a reasonable starting point?

This does refine your goal of a 'full samba(3) build', but could it meet
the needs of this audience?

(For others, of course we need to address the raised issues to ensure
the waf fileserver is correctly built, but these are a release blocker


Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org

More information about the samba-technical mailing list