[Samba] static vs shared modules build

Miguel Medalha medalist at sapo.pt
Wed Mar 16 18:13:38 UTC 2016

>> what other behavior do you expect?
>> how would you remove "acl_xattr" from global for a share otherwise?

Well, I wouldn't declare it in [global] then :-)

>> global: this is what has to be active everywhere until i say other
>> share: i now say other and i say it *fully*

>> any other behavior in the past by mixing half of [global] and add [share]
was as clear bug and undefined behavior

It's a way (maybe a good one) of looking at it. Nevertheless, it worked as I
described until version 3.6.

I think that you didn't quite understand what I meant. I understand your
reasoning but why should declaring an additional module in a share nullify
the globally set parameter? Using your terms:

global: I want this module to be active for ALL my shares. If I don't want
it on all my shares, I won't put it in [global]

share: ON TOP of what I already defined globally, I want this module for
share A, that module for share B, that other one for share C. This was the
previous behavior and it was VERY convenient. Plus, it respected the general
principle of "global (G) parameters work in [global] and share (S)
parameters work both in (S) and in (G)". This is very clear. The current
situation opens a can of casuistic worms, where instead of a simple general
principle you will have to specify casuistically where each of the
particular parameters work and don't work.

AND even if the change is an acceptable one, then it needs to be documented
clearly, wouldn't you think?

More information about the samba mailing list