[Samba] self compiled 4.10.3 replication failure.

[me at tdiehl.org]

On Mon, 20 May 2019, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 3:33 PM <me at tdiehl.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 18 May 2019, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 4:32 PM Tom Diehl via samba
>>> <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have a new Centos 7.6 VM that I self compiled 4.10.3 and joined it to an
>>>> existing samba AD domain that has 2 existing DCs. One of the existing DCs is
>>>> running 4.8.7 and the other is running 4.7.7. Everything looks OK except
>>>> that when I run samba-tool drs showrepl on the new DC (VDC4) I get the
>>>> following output:
>>>
>>> "self-compiled" can include a lot of sins, especially if trying to
>>> place it alongside *or* in place of the provided libraries for tevent,
>>> ldb, tdb, and talloc. Let me point you to my git repo,
>>
>> Well OK maybe I should have said self compiled using the instructions
>> @ https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Build_Samba_from_Source#configure and
>> the package list from https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Package_Dependencies_Required_to_Build_Samba#Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_7_.2F_CentOS_7_.2F_Scientific_Linux_7
>> substituting python36-devel for python-devel and adding python32-dns
>> to get the samba-tool dns module to work.
>> None of the distro samba packages are installed.
>>
>> TBH, I am guessng about the package list given the change from python2 to python3
>> as it does not look like the wiki has been updated for 4.10.x.
>>
>>> https:/github.com/nkadel/samba4repo/, with submodules for samba
>>> itself, talloc, tevent, etc., etc. It's built to use the official
>>> upstream tarballs from www.samba.org, not tarballs from *me*, and that
>>> also will give you a good git repo you can use to manage any
>>> compilation options in the ".spec" file.
>>
>> Is there a way to only build the Centos bits using your git repo? I have no
>> Fedora machines and so far I have not been successful in getting the above
>> to build on a Centos 7 VM using the version of Mock supplied by the Centos
>> project.
>
> Yeah. Comment out the other operating systems in the Makefiles.
> Install the dependencies, as  RPMs, in order. The order in the top
> level Makefile should get you through the process.

OK, I thought about that but I was wondering if there was an easier way.
Thanks for confirming that.

>>> Hmm. some classic questions include "is SELinux on", and "which
>>> Kerberos did you use, the supported internal Heimdal Kerberos or the
>>> experimental support for MIT kerberos?
>>
>> SELinux is in permissive and my configure line is simply ./configure so no MIT
>> here. IMO no one in their right mind would try to use MIT in production.
>
> If you just run "./configure" and then "make install, you can wind up
> interleaving RPM based components on top of system components. Some of
> the critical libraries are system libraries, used by other components,
> and may not have been updated or may show up before your new compiled
> versions based the system's LD_LIBRARY_PATH and other factors. I can't
> try to debug that without a good look at what you have in place, and
> where you put things, deliberately or accidentally. This is precisely
> why I publish RPM's, and why for someone who doesn't like to play with
> this stuff I'd actually they spend some money and pay for the Sernet,
> commercially supported binaries.

Here's where I disagree. When you run ./configure, make and make install
everything gets put into /usr/local/samba by default. It is not installed
over top of any system components.

Not that I recommend this as a standard practice but if you totally screw the
pooch on a build for whatever reason all you have to do is
rm -r /usr/local/samba and you get to start over. I have tested this and know
that it works. :-)

Obviously if you do that to a DC that is joined to a domain, you have more than
that to clean up.

Regards,

-- 
Tom			me at tdiehl.org