[Samba] Is the samba-dc package on Centos 7 gimped?

Rowland Penny rowlandpenny at googlemail.com
Mon Oct 20 14:22:41 MDT 2014

On 20/10/14 20:48, steve wrote:
> On 20/10/14 21:17, Rowland Penny wrote:
>> On 20/10/14 20:04, Simo wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2014-10-19 at 16:19 +0100, Rowland Penny wrote:
>>>> On 19/10/14 16:08, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Rowland Penny
>>>>> <rowlandpenny at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/10/14 00:06, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>>>>>> I can expect RHEL to do that for me in new OS releases, it's 
>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>> what I pay money for, and sharing the expertise in a bundled set 
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> others is part of what I appreciate from the open source and 
>>>>>>> freeware
>>>>>>> worlds.
>>>>>> So you are going to rely on red hat coming up with a working 
>>>>>> samba DC
>>>>>> package, good luck with that and I hope you are prepared to be
>>>>>> patient.
>>>>>> Samba 4 was released nearly 2 years ago and red hat still hasn't 
>>>>>> got a
>>>>>> working package, why ? because they insist it must work with mit
>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>> heimdal, it probably would have been quicker for red hat to drop 
>>>>>> mit.
>>>>>> Rowland
>>>>> MIT Kerberos was, and remains, the reference Kerberos stack, so the
>>>>> reluctance to migrate from it is understandable.
>>>> So what, this, where I come from from, is known as 'cutting your nose
>>>> off to spite your face' or in other words, they could have had a samba
>>>> DC nearly two years ago and still have worked on getting mit 
>>>> kerberos to
>>>> work.
>>> No Rowland, we could not have done it, or we would have done it.
>>> It was largely my decision at the time, if you want to blame someone.
>>> And I am a Samba Team member, it was not an easy decision.
>>> But it was fully based on technical grounds and was the only rational
>>> decision for RHEL/Fedora.
>>> The reason is that samba come with client libraries too and you can't
>>> create a properly working OS where the same binaries include 2 
>>> different
>>> versions of the same library. Besides potential symbol clashing (that
>>> was later hidden with compiler and dynamic loader tricks) there are
>>> other issues with features available in one and not available on the
>>> other. Ie there are features MIT provides and RHEL/Fedora uses that are
>>> not supported in Heimdal code and would cause issues if some client 
>>> code
>>> does not support features other code relies on.
>>>>> And yes, I see some
>>>>> development reports on Red Hat and Fedora getting this striaghtened
>>>>> out in the foreseeable future.
>>>> I think they said this nearly two years ago ;-)
>>> Yes, and it takes time to unravel samba code that has been built w/o 
>>> any
>>> regard for compatibility to the MIT implementation. For some reason 
>>> when
>>> Heimdal was introduced in the AD part of the code, MIT compatibility 
>>> was
>>> *actively* removed. It took time to back trace and fix a ton of
>>> dependency as well as compatibility functions and reinstate or rework
>>> them.
>>> We started with making the client side work first. Which is why 
>>> there is
>>> any 4.x code at all in RHEL. Then we started working on the server side
>>> which was a bigger task.
>>> We'll eventually get there, but things do not just happen fast because
>>> we'd like them to, we want code that works with either MIT or Heimdal
>>> and that is maintainable long term, not some quick'n'dirty hack.
>>> HTH,
>>> Simo.
>> Thank you very much for explaining that Simo, the information available
>> (well what I could find with a quick search) just basically says 'you
>> cannot have a samba4 DC on RHEL', even the text message in the 'DC' rpm
>> isn't that informative, it really needs a combination of that message
>> and what is written above.
>> OH and OK, it is all your fault :-D
>> Rowland
> SLES use the same argument for their lack of samba DC. However, it is 
> no problem to build one using the their mit libraries. Is it not even 
> possible to build on red hut at all?
As an exercise I setup up a centos 7 VM and compiled samba 4, it 
compiled without incident but that was as far as I got.


More information about the samba mailing list