[Samba] clients not connecting to samba shares
rpenny at samba.org
Thu Mar 30 08:00:58 UTC 2023
On 30/03/2023 08:53, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote:
> 30.03.2023 10:33, Kees van Vloten via samba пишет:
>> To add to this, if you do not want everything from backports then use
>> apt-pinning so that you just get the Samba packages from there.
> Please don't do this. There's no need to use pinning with debian backports.
> This is not related to samba but to the way how debian backports archive
> works. The whole thing is marked with
> NotAutomatic: yes
> ButAutomaticUpgrades: yes
> so only packages you explicitly ask for are installed from bpo, and these
> packages will be kept up to date. See man 5 apt_preferences. This is
> the way it works since debian squeeze.
>> Indeed Samba evolves much faster than Debian releases are released, so
>> sticking to the primary release is not a good thing in this particular
> It is not the case here either.
> The prob was that 4.13 packages in debian needed quite a bit of
> adjustments, -
> for a few years many changes in there were made in quick but unthinkful
> making smallest changes instead of right changes. Without updates to new
> versions too, - for example, at the time of bullseye, more recent samba
> version has already been available (if not two). The state of samba
> has been, well, not excellent :) - which resulted in minor change in an
> unrelated place breaking some other random place. We had a bullseye
> update which resulted in i386 smbd binary crashing at startup due to wrong
> order of object files at the link line, - this is obviously completely
> Well.. actually I _can_ try to backport a few security patches from current
> samba releases to 4.13, but there are at least 2 issues with that. First,
> I really dislike doing that, every time I look at the 4.13 packages I'm
> trembling somewhere deep inside :). And second, I tried to backport the
> already mentioned Win 22H2 AD-DC fix, provided the updated packages, but
> wasn't entirely sure it actually fixes the issue (since I had no
> to test it), -- see #1022574. But the user in question already switched
> to bpo version so even they weren't able to test it for me :) so it went
> this way without fixing.
> So I'm talking just about this 4.13 debian bullseye thing, not general
> debian "vs" samba thing.
> I keep samba backports in debian up to date due to this very reason, -
> because 4.13 bullseye packages aren't the best.
> (I uploaded 4.17.7 (and 4.16.10) versions to debian and to my archives
> built for debian and ubuntu, filed an unblock request for bookworm for
> hopefully it will be in bookworm in a few days, and plan to upload it to
> bpo11 today or tomorrow).
Thanks for posting that Michael, it confirms what I already thought, but
for some reasons I hadn't thought of.
More information about the samba