Patch submission version 4

[steve]

On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 09:00 +0000, Rowland Penny wrote:
> On 11/11/13 01:51, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 12:20 +0200, Stéphane PURNELLE wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> In attached file, patch in GIT format with some typo correction
> >>
> >> could you review and push in your master (samba4.1) if ok.
> > Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been swamped.  We really need
> > tests for additional functionality like this.  Could you add them?
> >
> > See for example:
> > python/samba/tests/samba_tool/user.py
> >
> > Andrew Bartlett
> >
> Hi Andrew, could I ask if you have changed your mind? in a post to the 
> samba list, you wrote 'if AD isn't adding it using the standard GUI 
> tools, we shouldn't require it either. '
> 
> See: https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2012-December/170661.html
> 
>  From this, I take it that if Windows doesn't add the posixAccount & 
> posixGroup objectClasses then no Samba tools should either.
> 
> Windows will never add either objectClass because they are both 
> auxillary classes of user & group respectively. So from my perspective, 
> any Unix tool that relies on either of these objectClasses against an AD 
> is broken, i.e. relying on posixAccount would not work against a windows 
> AD server, so it should not work against a Samba 4 AD server.
> 
> Do you agree, and if not, why not?
> 
> Rowland
> 
Hi
To be even more similar to w2008 and to make sure we are all on the same
playing field b4 we start adapting our configurations to suit our own
domains, could I also suggest that the posixAccount and posixGroup
classes are not carried over to AD via classicupgrade?
Cheers,
Steve