[Samba] FW: [Bug 11241] different ids even when idmap.ldb copied. not abug..

[L.P.H. van Belle]

not ? .. just to be sure.. in not into the code of samba.. 

created at install 
drwxrwx---+  3 root BUILTIN\administrators    4096 Apr 28 13:32 sysvol 
( root? ) 

usershare path = /var/lib/samba/usershares
since this :   ls -al /var/lib/ | grep samba

drwxr-xr-x 10 root    root    4096 Apr 30 09:27 samba
owned by root:root 
or is this handled by samba internaly. 
folder usershares  is not auto created. 

maybe ( but that i dont know ) 
smb passwd file = /var/lib/samba/private/smbpasswd

and yes.. that i know this is why i have in my scripts. 
things like. 
net rpc rights grant "${SAMBA_NT_DOMAIN}\Domain Admins" SeDiskOperatorPrivilege -UAdministrator

thank for making this all more clear. 

Greetz,  

Louis


>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>Van: Bjoern Jacke [mailto:bj at sernet.de] 
>Verzonden: donderdag 30 april 2015 12:26
>Aan: L.P.H. van Belle
>CC: samba at lists.samba.org
>Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] FW: [Bug 11241] different ids even when 
>idmap.ldb copied. not abug..
>
>On 2015-04-30 at 11:35 +0200 L.P.H. van Belle sent off:
>> I can totaly agree with that, having multiple users with the 
>same id isnt what we want,
>> but samba needs at some point root rights, for creating 
>folders/files. 
>> Now we have a "chicken and the egg problem" which one comes first?
>
>I don't see much reasons why DOMAIN\administrator should have 
>need root rights
>by uid 0 on a member server. If you really need any kind of 
>extra privileges on
>a member server then there is net sam rights for that. The 
>"admin users"
>parameter is another hackish option. There is no chicken egg problem.
>
>Best reagrds
>Björn
>-- 
>SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
>  ??? +49-551-370000-0, ??? +49-551-370000-9
>AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
>
>