Patch submission version 4
steve at steve-ss.com
Mon Nov 11 02:15:30 MST 2013
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?
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?
More information about the samba-technical