[Samba] Samba 4.19 Support Directory Schema Version

[Rowland Penny]

On 01/08/2023 10:11, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-08-01 at 09:51 +0100, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:
>>
>> On 01/08/2023 09:46, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2023-08-01 at 09:36 +0100, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 01/08/2023 09:26, Andrew Bartlett via samba wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2023-08-01 at 05:09 -0300, Anderson Sampaio Mello via samba
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi samba team.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The release notes for version 4.19 state that samba will support functional
>>>>>> level 2016.
>>>>>
>>>>> Support is to perhaps overstate it, but we can claim to be 2016.  We
>>>>> haven't finished all the parts.
>>>>>
>>>>>> My question is whether it will also support Directory Schema Version 88 or
>>>>>> 87 or both?
>>>>>
>>>>> Schema 2019 is schema 88 and this is the default for Samba 4.19.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew Bartlett
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andrew, I am struggling to understand this, if I go here:
>>>>
>>>> https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=tree;f=source4/setup/ad-schema;h=beeca80c417b7a4eca8baf77274b7b77ea87fe9d;hb=refs/heads/v4-19-test  <https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=tree;f=source4/setup/ad-schema;h=beeca80c417b7a4eca8baf77274b7b77ea87fe9d;hb=refs/heads/v4-19-test>
>>>>
>>>> Which I believe is what will become 4.19.0 when it is released.
>>>>
>>>> I cannot see there any mention of of 2019, the latest appears to be
>>>> 2016, which would be schema 87.
>>>
>>> The filename style changed, see the files tagged v1903:
>>>
>>> as referenced from python/samba/schema.py
>>>        "2019": ("AD_DS_Attributes_Windows_Server_v1903.ldf",
>>>                   "AD_DS_Classes_Windows_Server_v1903.ldf",
>>>                   88),
>>>
>>> Andrew Bartlett
>>>
>>
>> Ah, obvious, when you know :-)
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to use something like:
>>
>> AD_DS_Attributes_Windows_Server_Schema_88.ldf ?
>>
>> Rowland
> 
> These are the filenames used at 
> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=23782 
> <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=23782>
> 

Fair comment, but that doesn't mean we have to use the same filenames, 
just because MS names them something obscure, doesn't mean we have to.

Just my opinion.

Rowland