[Samba] Samba Wiki change suggestion
rpenny at samba.org
Fri Aug 26 16:43:58 UTC 2016
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:15:22 -0500
Bob of Donelson Trophy via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> On 2016-08-26 10:59, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 06:08:16 -0500
> > Bob of Donelson Trophy via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> >> On the "Bidirectional Rsync/Unison based SysVol replication
> >> workaround" page. The title (as you can see) includes the word
> >> UNISON when in fact the "Unison" program is NOT being used for this
> >> replication anymore. As the instructions there actually use "Osync"
> >> then the word "UNISON" should probably need to be replaced with
> >> "OSYNC". (I looked rather quickly but, I do not see any Unison
> >> references in the instructions anywhere.)
> >> The Unison linux "syncing" program does NOT support Windows based
> >> ACL's and therefore will not replicate the correct file acl
> >> attributes between DC's. The "Unison" people have given little
> >> indication that they (the program) intend to support ACL attributes
> >> in the future. For now, we need to stick with Osync. (Which works
> >> very well.)
> >> Only a suggestion of improvement. Thank you.
> > OK, I have done what whoever changed the wiki page should have
> > done, I have created a new wiki page for the osync way and rolled
> > the original page back to the unison way of doing things.
> > I will now edit the osync page to correct a few things that need
> > changing (broken link, conf variable name changes etc).
> > I will also discuss the unison page with Louis Van Belle, I believe
> > he is still using this method and may have some input on what, if
> > anything, that needs changing.
> > Rowland
> The ACL issue with Unison has me so confused. Most places say "no"
> they do not support ACL permissions. And yet I know Louis has been
> using Unison for his sysvol replication.
Exactly, if Louis is still using Unison without problems, then it
should be offered as an option, if it doesn't work, then it should be
removed. What shouldn't have happened was somebody massively changing a
wiki page without changing the header, this way lies confusion.
More information about the samba