[Samba] SID mapping: Samba and SSSD

[Gregory Sloop]

Rpvs> On 04/09/2020 19:02, Gregory Sloop wrote:
>> Re: [Samba] SID mapping: Samba and SSSD


>> *Rpvs> On 03/09/2020 22:35, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:20:09PM +0100, Rowland penny via samba 
>> wrote:
>> >>> On 03/09/2020 22:08, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>> >>>> Happy to review if you write it :-). Anything that
>> >>>> will remove friction moving to/from winbindd/sssd
>> >>>> would be good for users !
>> >>> And I will be happy to 'NACK' it, we do not need another idmap 
>> backend, well
>> >>> not unless it it is a total rewrite to give us something like how 
>> RID works
>> >>> on Windows and is the only idmap backend.

>> >>> There would be no friction if everyone would accept that using 
>> sssd with
>> >>> Samba is no longer supported by anyone. Red-Hat could make this 
>> more obvious
>> >>> by removing sssd-winbind-idmap, their documentation says it use isn't
>> >>> supported.
>> >> I'm just trying to make users lives happier :-). Why do you
>> >> hate happy users Rowland ? :-) :-).
>> Rpvs> I do not hate happy users, I just do not see the point to sssd with
>> Rpvs> Samba, I actually think they will be happier without sssd

>> *It really seems to me like we ought to let users decide THEMSELVES, 
>> what will make them happy, eh?
>> I'll just leave it there.

Rpvs> HI Gregory, no one is saying that users of Samba cannot use sssd, it is
Rpvs> just that nobody will give you support if you do. If you are using Samba
 >>= 4.8.0 with sssd on a Unix domain member, then you are on your own if 
Rpvs> you run into problems, unless you are asking for support to move to winbind.

Rpvs> Rowland

IMHO, that's not actually how you act and respond.
When I saw this latest thread come up on SSSD, I was like; "Oh, no! Rowland's going to have puppies!", because you get so terribly exercised about SSSD questions.

If you don't want to field any questions about SSSD, then don't.
If you don't want to offer support on SSSD, then don't.

But, again IMO, you aren't pleasant about any SSSD questions. I'm not sure why it's such a point of contention.
I mean, look at this response.

From here: https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2020-September/231767.html

>> This does make me wonder whether it would be worth adding an optional
>> non-default parameter to idmap_autorid to have it use the sssd slicing
>> algorithm to determine ranges. Sort of like SSSD has an autorid
>> compatibility parameter.

> Happy to review if you write it :-). Anything that
> will remove friction moving to/from winbindd/sssd
> would be good for users !

And I will be happy to 'NACK' it, we do not need another idmap backend, 
well not unless it it is a total rewrite to give us something like how 
RID works on Windows and is the only idmap backend.

There would be no friction if everyone would accept that using sssd with 
Samba is no longer supported by anyone. Red-Hat could make this more 
obvious by removing sssd-winbind-idmap, their documentation says it use 
isn't supported.

That's your response to your own Samba team member, JA.

That's not just simply saying "It's not supported." IMO, that's being borish. And that's certainly not the only time you were abrasive in the thread. [Again, these are all my *opinions,* I have no idea if anyone else agrees or not.]

You do a lot of fielding of questions on Samba, and that's great. It's a thankless job, and I'm sure it's a grind.
I just think a deep breath occasionally when you're frustrated might be handy.

-Greg