Samba 2.2.7 Oddities

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 15:54, Michael B Allen wrote:
> >> >> I noticed two entirly unrelated strange things about Samba
> >> >> 2.2.7-security-rollup-fix today.
> >> >
> >> > Ummm, 2.2.7 is, ummm, old.
> >>
> >> Are you saying I should be using 3.0? Otherwise is 2.2.8 really that
> >> different?
> >
> > Well, a lot of work went into 2.2.8a, so I would suggest that. However,
> > 3.0.0 is much better in so many ways.
> 
> Ok, I tied 2.2.8a. No difference.
> 
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=728
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=729
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=730
> 
> These are admittedly obscure and will likely not effect effect windows
> clients too badly

I would never say that :-)

The whole samba4 exercise it on the basis that every non-conforming
behaviour is a bug waiting to be exposed, so we certainly want to fix
them.

>  but it's definiately non-cornforming behavior (I use the
> term loosely considering MS implementations) and the DFS stuff will simply
> not work with jCIFS which is shame.
> 
> After I finish up jCIFS 0.8 I'll switch to 3.0 and try that too.

Given 3.0 is the one we can actually fix (changing 2.2 would introduce
more bugs than we can fix at this stage) that would be appreciate.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                 abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team  abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College   abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org     http://build.samba.org     http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20031109/99d07e94/attachment.bin