[Samba] sssd-ad cannot be installed with sernet samba

[buhorojo]

On 03/04/15 12:46, Rowland Penny wrote:
> On 03/04/15 11:27, buhorojo wrote:
>> On 03/04/15 12:19, Rowland Penny wrote:
>>> On 03/04/15 10:19, buhorojo wrote:
>>>> On 03/04/15 11:09, Rowland Penny wrote:
>>>>> On 02/04/15 22:54, Andrey Repin wrote:
>>>>>> Greetings, Harry Jede!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can recommend whatever you like, the reality is that 
>>>>>>>> there's no
>>>>>>>> spare hardware is coming my way alongside your recommendations.
>>>>>>>> And I've been bitten by virtualization one time too many 
>>>>>>>> already to
>>>>>>>> feel reluctant to implement it in production.
>>>>>>>> Just check the last thread I started.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, if you must use the DC as a fileserver, investigate the
>>>>>>>>> 'template' lines for smb.conf
>>>>>>>> I can't see, how it can make a difference, if I'm setting 
>>>>>>>> winbind on
>>>>>>>> DC or a member server.
>>>>>>>   OK. You dont understand it. winbind exists in two 
>>>>>>> incarnations. winbind on
>>>>>>> samba dc, version 4.0.x and 4.1.x, winbindd (with two d) on all 
>>>>>>> other samba versions.
>>>>>> I have same Samba version on both, so, doesn't apply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The information is coming from same place -
>>>>>>>> from AD.
>>>>>>>   Simply false. Read the docs.
>>>>>>> Information may be stored in AD, passwd db, nis, idmap.ldb or 
>>>>>>> computed on
>>>>>>> the fly. Sometimes you have two stores at the same time.
>>>>>> Where information MAY come from is irrelevant.
>>>>>> I told you, where it is coming from in my case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What makes it behave differently, if set on different
>>>>>>>> server?
>>>>>>> Different approaches for the same thing!!
>>>>>>> Mapping M$ identities to posix identities could be quite complex.
>>>>>> I set the same program in the same fashion on two OS 
>>>>>> installations of the same
>>>>>> version - and suddenly it behave differently, depends on the 
>>>>>> server it runs
>>>>>> on, the phase of the moon and the height of snow cover on Alaska?
>>>>>> See above, I can compress this phrase into one word, starting 
>>>>>> with "b". And
>>>>>> that would not be a "bug".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, from what you have posted, I am surmising that you are using 
>>>>> samba 4.2.0, in which case you will be using winbindd on all samba 
>>>>> servers.
>>>>> Now, whilst winbindd is in use on all servers, it is used 
>>>>> differently depending on what the server is. If it is a DC, the 
>>>>> samba daemon is started and then this starts the smbd & winbindd 
>>>>> daemons, unfortunately, it would appear that not all the links are 
>>>>> there to use all that winbindd could provide. This means whilst 
>>>>> you get the uidNumber & the primarygroupid, you do not get 
>>>>> anything else, this is not a bug, it is a lack of a feature.
>>>>
>>>> So why have you reported it a bug in Samba Bugzilla and labelled 
>>>> its priority as 'P5 major'?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because when I reported that bug I thought it *was* a bug, I have 
>>> since been advised that it isn't and HAVE ACCEPTED THIS!!!
>>>
>>> Rowland
>>>
>> If you have changed your mind, then maybe you should consider either 
>> withdrawing the bug report or at the very least updating the same to 
>> include reference to this post.
>> Thanks,
>> B.
>>
>>
>
> I will not be referencing this thread and I will not be withdrawing 
> the bug report, whilst it turned out not be a bug, it is a lack of an 
> expected feature and whilst the bug report is open it will serve as a 
> reminder to the devs.
>
> You can, if you so wish, add to the bug report, explaining that this 
> problem affects you, I would think that the more people it affects, 
> the more chance there will be of getting the feature added.
>
> I also think that this thread has run its course and will not be 
> posting on it again.
>
> Rowland 

What a pity. A major bug, according to your report. Misleading.