[Samba] Why does this logon-script not work under Win9x ?

[Harry Rüter]

Hi list,

thanks for the suggestions.

First of all, i'll answer to your suggestions and tipps :

Michiel_Lange at actuera.nl wrote :

>You might want to check out where the execution stops. I've encountered
>hanging netlogon scripts in the past, which ran fine after some time like
>miraculously... but I saw the very long variable-names.. that might be a
>problem...?

No, they are no problem, if environment is big enough, and it is ...
 

Chris Smith <chris at realcomputerguy.com> wrote:

>The usual problem when a script runs under an NT based OS and not a DOS
>based OS is line termination. It seems that NT based systems are less
>sensitive to proper DOS line termination than DOS based systems.

This is a problem often, but as the script is written by a shell-script
at netlogon, i always let it do a unix2dos to have the correct line 
termination. 


 Khanh Tran <khanh at slc.edu> wrote:

>Anyone here is welcome to tell me I'm wrong, but I don't think that Win98
>will set your variables:

>set CURRENTSERVICE=netlogon
>set ROOTDIRCURSERVICE=/opt/samba/netlogon
>set USEROFCURRENTSERVICE=harry
>set PRIMARYGRUOUPOFCURRENTSERVICEUSER=users
>set SESSIONUSER=harry
>set PRIMARYGROUPOFSESSIONUSER=users
>set HOMEDIROFSERVICEUSER=/home/harry

Why not ?

>I won't quote the rest, but I believe that Win98 will attempt to actually
>locate the paths you are setting, and being that those don't exist under a
>Win98 filesystem, it will come back with errors.  The W2k machines probably
>work because they'll just set the variables to whatever you want, despite
>their validity.

No, Win9x and other Wins don`t mind about the content of a variable.

>Also, it could just be how you are creating the logon script under Unix and
>DOS doesn't like the line breaks.

Sure a problem, but not mine, as said above ...


Mathias Homann wrote:
> 
> I have the very same problem here, a netlogon script that runs fine when
> logging in from a NT based WS (WinXP here) but refuses to when logging in
> from W98. and I created the logon script on linux and converted it with
> unix2dos so the line endings should be ok.

Same argumentation, same answer as above ...

 
Rainer Schoenen <schoenen at schoenen-service.de> wrote:

>I guess the environment space is exhausted.
>Once upon a time, DOS had a limitation in the number of characters
>in the environment buffer.
>It was 512 bytes by default.
>I remember having experienced similar problems with Win95-98.
>Under DOS this could be changed by calling something like
>command.exe /E:1024 in your config.sys
>Maybe it can be changed by executing "msconfig".

Yes, there should be enough environment, but there was enough,
as i did what you suggested (before you suggested it :o)


Now, to the solution :

It's a problem of case sensitivity or name-mangling, 
i don't know.

W2k doesn't have any problem with the case of filenames.
But W98 or SAMBA in connection with W9x has a problem.

You remember i was calling for logonsmb.bat, which i
could see in W98 (in WindowsCommander and explorer)
written as logonsmb.bat. (I copied the file into a public
share, so i could test it from W98 directly).

When i tried to start it W98 told me , although i could see it,
that the file logonsmb.bat doesn't exist.

A look into the logfile of samba showed me, that the name of the
file was changed into LOGONSMB.BAT samba was searching this file
but this file doesn't exist !!!

So, for a quick solution, i now use LOGONSMB.BAT as logon-script,
but the question is, who transfers the filename to the 
uppercase-version ?

Here are my mangling- and case-entries of smb.conf,
are there any suggestions ?

(My aim is, that filenames look the same under LINUX and Winxxx
i.e. there should be a difference between the filenames
Data DATA data . This should be three different files under all OS).

---smb.conf---
dos filetimes = Yes
preserve case = yes
short preserve case = yes
case sensitive =yes
hide unreadable = yes
---smb.conf---

By the way, i could be wrong, but i think this "feature" came in
with version 2.2.4 as i think everything worked fine till 2.2.3a.
Was there a changing in how samba behaves with those things ?

greets Harry

PS.: If anybody of the samba-developres reads this, i kindly ask him to
     tell us more about those things ...