Default DNS server for Samba 4.0

Michael Adam obnox at
Mon Sep 10 02:24:11 MDT 2012

On 2012-09-10 at 07:51 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
> On 2012-09-10 06:44, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> > On 09/06/2012 03:36 PM, Kai Blin wrote:
> >> On 2012-09-06 20:21, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> >> 
> >>> The only question is who will be the maintainer of this code ?
> >> I'm happy to own the internal DNS bugs, if that's what you mean.
> >> Just as long as nobody expects me to fix BIND bugs. ;)
> > Sure what about a second maintainer ? ie. micheal adams Just
> > because (and I don't blame you) you are not paid to work (at least 
> > partially on samba).
> Since when is that a requirement? Everybody with commit access can
> push patches to this if they want to. It's not like there's a
> restrictive MAINTAINERS.txt policy in place or the like.
> I'd be _very_ careful before we go down a path where "paid
> contributors" are different from "hobby contributors". Especially if
> we're also giving the impression that unpaid contributors are somehow
> team members second class. I think this sends the completely wrong
> message.

I agree to that!

If it helps, I would of happy to back up Kai in responsibility
for this component, having been a very strong advocate of this
solution. But I have not yet contributed a lot of code in that
area, and as Kai has pointed out, being paid for working on Samba
does not automatically render me more competent and more reliable
in maintaining the dns server... (I am not paid for working on
the dns code, at this very moment at least. :-)
But again, if it helps, count me in, since I have a strong
interest in the solution and hope to be able to contribute more
in the near future.

Let me repeat that I don't argue for the default change
because I want to get rid of the bind backend. This is very
well suited for bigger and heterogenious installations.

But for the default setup, the simple, single DC installation,
the built in DNS server that "just works" (TM) seems to be the
perfect match, regarding the user experience, despite the youth
of the code.

This is why I argue why 4.0 and not a later release would be
ghe perfect time for changing the default for 4.0.

Again, no matter how the default for new installations is set,
both backends will and should be available, both for very good

Cheers - Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list