[Samba] clients not connecting to samba shares

Rowland Penny 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 
>> case.
> 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 
> way,
> 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 
> package
> has been, well, not excellent :) - which resulted in minor change in an
> unrelated place breaking some other random place. We had a bullseye 
> security
> 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
> unacceptable..
> 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 
> environment
> 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 
> 4.17.7,
> hopefully it will be in bookworm in a few days, and plan to upload it to
> bpo11 today or tomorrow).
> /mjt

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 mailing list