[Samba] Question about the difference samba3x and samba 3.x
hceuterpe at gmail.com
Wed Jul 25 13:29:17 MDT 2012
samba3x is essentially anything beyond the original Samba 3.0 packages.
However, the fact they didn't bump samba3x is actually not true. Redhat
started doing this with RHEL5.4 as a technology preview with Samba 3.3:
It was no longer a technology preview in RHEL5.5:
In RHEL5.6 samba3x went from Samba 3.3 to Samba 3.5
Finally on RHEL5, if you try to install samba3x and samba3 second (or
vice versa), I'm pretty sure those packages will complain that they
Hope that helps.
On 07/25/2012 10:28 AM, Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
> On 25/07/12 15:39, Anthony Boccia wrote:
>> Hello All,
>> I haven been having issues joining my windows 7 client to a samba
>> 3.5.10-125 PDC. I have been doing some reading online and have found
>> pages that suggest that samba3x plays better with windows 7. The PDC
>> OS is
>> RHEL and i am using RHEL 6 upstream packages for samba. My question is,
>> does this theory of samba3x being windows 7 friendly over samba 3.x hold
>> true? Also, what is the difference between samba3x and samba 3.x.
> With RHEL RedHat make long term commitments not to fiddle with version
> numbers of the software. However given the age of RHEL5 the Samba
> 3.0.x that it originally shipped with was getting very long in the
> tooth and does not work as well with Vista/Windows 7.
> To overcome this problem but allow people who wished to stay with the
> original Samba 3.0.x version RHEL introduced samba3x packages (with
> RHEL 5.5 from memory). These are a newer version of Samba originally
> 3.3.8, then 3.5.4 and now 3.5.10. The samba3x packages mean that if I
> do a yum update on my RHEL 5 file server it does not update my Samba
> version beyond 3.0.x and break it unless I explicitly do the upgrade
> by hand.
> Currently none of this applies on RHEL6 which is using 3.5.x from the
> get go.
More information about the samba