Name Change for Samba4? [Re: What is blocking a Samba4 Tech Preview?]

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 11:18 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 20:19 +1100, tridge at samba.org wrote:
> > Volker,
> > 
> >  > I just wanted to point out a different metric about the user-visible changes.
> >  > Lines of code is one, number of changed, added or removed parameters is
> >  > another. And 'valid users' is just a quite prominent example I think.
> > 
> > quite true, but the major number of Samba (and many other software
> > packages) is reserved for 'big, user-visible changes'. That's why we
> > are calling it Samba 4.0 not Samba 3.1. The first digit changing means
> > "beware! big changes have happened!".
> > 
> > While developing Samba4 we have removed many of the smb.conf options
> > in Samba 3.x. This isn't because we don't want those options in Samba
> > 4.0, it is just because the underlying region of code that implements
> > those options has dissappeared, so the option disappeared with it. One
> > of the things we need to do for the 4.0 release is to make a list of
> > what options have been removed and decide on a case by case basis if
> > the option should be re-implemented or discarded.
> > 
> > Personally I think that 'valid users' should be kept, but I will be
> > interested in hearing from Simo on that. Perhaps he can convince me it
> > should not be re-implemented.
> 
> We had a brief discussion on IRC. I want to clarify my idea.
> 
> I do not want to see the functionality of "valid users" to disappear,
> but I'd like to remove as much duplicate conf paths as possible.
> For example the functionality of valid users is duplicated in the share
> acls code (not perfectly but that's no the point).

I think the key point is that while we are making drastic changes, the
functionality and the specific configuration options should be
available, where practical.  They may be renamed, or re-factored, but
basic config-file based over-all access control is a useful thing that
administrators like.

I don't mind these being additional to a ldb based system, much as they
are in samba3.  I expect them to be used just as much ;-)

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College  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/20051227/d36025a5/attachment.bin