Plans for pdb_ads and auth_netlogond?
idra at samba.org
Sat Jun 16 18:05:02 MDT 2012
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 01:52 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> simo wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 07:33 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 02:56:43PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 12:08 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think that I can give input that is deemed worth any
> > > > > consideration on this matter.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry,
> > > >
> > > > I'm not really sure what you mean by that.
> > > >
> > > > Are you OK with the patch, or do you have plans to develop these into
> > > > something that we use?
> > >
> > > They are still my preferred way to let smbd3 access the
> > > directory. You have decided that linking instead of ipc is
> > > the better way to integrate components. Your approach has
> > > more support in the community than mine,
> > I am not sure that is true. I made it clear earlier that I think the
> > linking approach is wrong, and I do prefer the forking and executing of
> > smbd.
> > > and as I do not
> > > have the time to develop them against your efforts on my
> > > own, it is only logical to remove them.
> > I would rather keep them around, I want to discuss the File Server
> > approach later, perhaps at the SDC conference.
> Hmmm, too late.
> I am als not certain, why it was important to remove them.
> It is not that they are in the way and blocking process, right?
Exactly, which is why I asked to revert.
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>
More information about the samba-technical