[Samba] server services line

[Rowland Penny]

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 22:24:15 +1300
Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 18:40 +0000, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 14:15:57 -0400
> > lingpanda101 via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > On 11/3/2016 2:03 PM, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 06:56:32 +1300
> > > > Andrew Bartlett via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 13:17 -0400, lingpanda101 via samba
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 11/3/2016 12:07 PM, Marc Muehlfeld via samba wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Hi Bob,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Am 03.11.2016 um 16:43 schrieb Bob of Donelson Trophy via
> > > > > > > samba:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I have seen you state this before that "server services"
> > > > > > > > line
> > > > > > > > within a
> > > > > > > > smb.conf file is not necessary on a DC.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I have to ask, and it may have been asked before but, I
> > > > > > > > recently
> > > > > > > > install
> > > > > > > > from source the v4.5.0 and during provisioning samba
> > > > > > > > created
> > > > > > > > that "line"
> > > > > > > > within the smb.conf file.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I understand what and why your saying this but, if the
> > > > > > > > line is
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > needed then why does provisioning a ADDC create the
> > > > > > > > line?
> > > > > > > https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/FAQ#Why_I_Do_Not_Have_a_se
> > > > > > > rver_ser
> > > > > > > vices_parameter_in_My_smb.conf_File.3F
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/FAQ#Can_I_Disable_Some_of_
> > > > > > > the_serv
> > > > > > > er_services_options_in_the_smb.conf_File.3F
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Marc
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > Marc,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >       Is this correct from the wiki?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > "If you are running Samba 4.2 or later, you can disable the
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > samba| internal |winbindd| daemon and switch to the
> > > > > > > recommended
> > > > > > > winbind| daemon. To switch, set:"
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I thought winbindd was preferred over winbind?
> > > > > It doens't matter.  I made them an alias for each other when I
> > > > > dropped the internal winbind for 4.2.  (I don't like breaking
> > > > > config files, and the generated line with all the values
> > > > > listed wasn't intentional. It was meant to be printed as
> > > > > "server services
> > > > > = -dns" or omitted, but some magic got in the way and now we
> > > > > are a
> > > > > bit stuck.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Andrew Bartlett
> > > > > 
> > > > Hi Andrew,
> > > > 
> > > > Pardon ???
> > > > 
> > > > The guy was asking about 'winbindd' & 'winbind' and you seem to
> > > > be
> > > > talking about dns.
> > > > 
> > > > In answer to lingpanda101, the wiki is correct, but could be
> > > > worded
> > > > better, 'winbind' isn't recommended over 'winbindd'.
> > > > 
> > > > Rowland
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Rowland,
> > > 
> > >      That's what I meant. It sounded as if winbind was preferred
> > > over 
> > > winbindd. Thanks for the clarification.
> > > 
> > 
> > I have altered the wiki page, it now says that you can change from
> > the
> > recommended 'winbindd' to the older 'winbind'
> 
> My point is that there is no longer an internal winbind in any
> supported version of samba, only winbindd, the long-standing codebase
> currently under source3/
> 
> The server services parser accepts either name and treats them
> identically.
> 
> In terms of -dns, my point is that this configuration, turning on or
> off the DNS server, is the only reason that an administrator should
> ever need to deal with 'server services'.  The defaults work just fine
> otherwise.  
> 
> The original plan for the parameter was never to have the full list of
> default services exposed, just to list the changes (eg -dns for no DNS
> server).  Had that been better implemented, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion, it just would have remained under the hood.
> 
> Andrew Bartlett
> 

Thanks for clarifying that, from what you have said, there is no point
in telling people they can change from 'winbindd' to 'winbind', all
they are doing is removing a 'd' LOL

Rowland