Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
[Samba] Samba 4 Packages Available for Download
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Karolin Seeger
May 14, 2013, 11:18:32 AM5/14/13
to
Hi list,
this is just a heads-up that SerNet does provide Samba 4 packages
(including AD DC package) now. For more information, please see
http://www.enterprisesamba.com/samba/
Cheers,
Karolin
--
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.SerNet.DE, mailto:kon...@SerNet.DE
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Fernando Lozano
May 14, 2013, 12:51:00 PM5/14/13
to
Hi there,
[Sorry for cross-posting, I hope I didn't violated any list policies]
> this is just a heads-up that SerNet does provide Samba 4 packages
> (including AD DC package) now.
It was told on the fedora user's list that the kerberos implementation
used by Fedora, RHEL and CentOS conflicts with the samba one, and so
Fedora was providing samba4 binaries without AD DC support. This was
related to the use of FreeIPA by Fedora and RHEL.
So I wasn't expecting to see packages with AD DC support for RHEL and
CentOS so soon. Thanks a lot!
But how did you manage the kerberos problem? I see you repo provides
only samba4 packages, and do not replace any other library or daemin
from CentOS and RHEL.
Or would the problem be present only on newer Fedora releases, and not
on RHEL6 (yet)? Would this be related to the fact servnet does not
provide samba4 packages for Fedora, or you simply don't package anything
for Fedora?
Another question: if my CentOS server is using samba3 from sernet repos,
may I upgrade them using sernet samba4? Or should I uninstall samba3 and
do a clean install of samba4, redoing all configuration manually?
[]s, Fernando Lozano
[Sorry for cross-posting, I hope I didn't violated any list policies]
> this is just a heads-up that SerNet does provide Samba 4 packages
> (including AD DC package) now.
used by Fedora, RHEL and CentOS conflicts with the samba one, and so
Fedora was providing samba4 binaries without AD DC support. This was
related to the use of FreeIPA by Fedora and RHEL.
So I wasn't expecting to see packages with AD DC support for RHEL and
CentOS so soon. Thanks a lot!
But how did you manage the kerberos problem? I see you repo provides
only samba4 packages, and do not replace any other library or daemin
from CentOS and RHEL.
Or would the problem be present only on newer Fedora releases, and not
on RHEL6 (yet)? Would this be related to the fact servnet does not
provide samba4 packages for Fedora, or you simply don't package anything
for Fedora?
Another question: if my CentOS server is using samba3 from sernet repos,
may I upgrade them using sernet samba4? Or should I uninstall samba3 and
do a clean install of samba4, redoing all configuration manually?
[]s, Fernando Lozano
Björn JACKE
May 15, 2013, 5:02:23 AM5/15/13
to
On 2013-05-14 at 13:51 -0300 Fernando Lozano sent off:
system krb libs.
> Or would the problem be present only on newer Fedora releases, and
> not on RHEL6 (yet)? Would this be related to the fact servnet does
> not provide samba4 packages for Fedora, or you simply don't package
> anything for Fedora?
theoretically red hat could also ship a s4 ad dc with built in heimdal kdc but
afaik they are working on MIT integration.
> Another question: if my CentOS server is using samba3 from sernet
> repos, may I upgrade them using sernet samba4? Or should I uninstall
> samba3 and do a clean install of samba4, redoing all configuration
> manually?
yes, the packages are upgradable from previous sernet packages and also from
the distribution vendor packages.
Björn
> >this is just a heads-up that SerNet does provide Samba 4 packages
> >(including AD DC package) now.
> It was told on the fedora user's list that the kerberos
> implementation used by Fedora, RHEL and CentOS conflicts with the
> samba one, and so Fedora was providing samba4 binaries without AD DC
> support. This was related to the use of FreeIPA by Fedora and RHEL.
>
> So I wasn't expecting to see packages with AD DC support for RHEL
> and CentOS so soon. Thanks a lot!
>
> But how did you manage the kerberos problem? I see you repo provides
> only samba4 packages, and do not replace any other library or daemin
> from CentOS and RHEL.
our samba packages use the heimdal that is shipped with s4, we don't use the
> >(including AD DC package) now.
> It was told on the fedora user's list that the kerberos
> implementation used by Fedora, RHEL and CentOS conflicts with the
> samba one, and so Fedora was providing samba4 binaries without AD DC
> support. This was related to the use of FreeIPA by Fedora and RHEL.
>
> So I wasn't expecting to see packages with AD DC support for RHEL
> and CentOS so soon. Thanks a lot!
>
> But how did you manage the kerberos problem? I see you repo provides
> only samba4 packages, and do not replace any other library or daemin
> from CentOS and RHEL.
system krb libs.
> Or would the problem be present only on newer Fedora releases, and
> not on RHEL6 (yet)? Would this be related to the fact servnet does
> not provide samba4 packages for Fedora, or you simply don't package
> anything for Fedora?
afaik they are working on MIT integration.
> Another question: if my CentOS server is using samba3 from sernet
> repos, may I upgrade them using sernet samba4? Or should I uninstall
> samba3 and do a clean install of samba4, redoing all configuration
> manually?
the distribution vendor packages.
Björn
Miguel Medalha
May 15, 2013, 4:01:43 PM5/15/13
to
There seems to be a problem with the "sernet-samba-ad" init script, at
least on CentOS.
Samba fails to start. The log file shows the following:
[2013/05/15 20:48:37, 0] ../source4/smbd/server.c:369(binary_smbd_main)
samba version 4.0.5-SerNet-RedHat-1.el6 started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2012
[2013/05/15 20:48:38, 0] ../source4/smbd/server.c:475(binary_smbd_main)
samba: using 'standard' process model
[2013/05/15 20:48:38, 0]
../file_server/file_server.c:47(file_server_smbd_done)
file_server smbd daemon exited normally
[2013/05/15 20:48:38, 0]
../source4/smbd/service_task.c:35(task_server_terminate)
task_server_terminate: [smbd child process exited]
[2013/05/15 20:48:38, 0] ../source4/smbd/server.c:210(samba_terminate)
samba_terminate: smbd child process exited
It looks like smbd starts and immediately exits.
Under /var/run/samba, a process file samba.pid remains but not a
smbd.pid file.
Although samba is not running, the pidfile is left there. As a
consequence, on further attempts to start samba using the script, it
complains that a pidfile already exists.
When samba is called by other means (/usr/sbin/samba or alternative init
scripts) it starts and runs correctly.
I am running 64bit CentOS 6.4.
Thank you for your work.
least on CentOS.
Samba fails to start. The log file shows the following:
[2013/05/15 20:48:37, 0] ../source4/smbd/server.c:369(binary_smbd_main)
samba version 4.0.5-SerNet-RedHat-1.el6 started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2012
[2013/05/15 20:48:38, 0] ../source4/smbd/server.c:475(binary_smbd_main)
samba: using 'standard' process model
[2013/05/15 20:48:38, 0]
../file_server/file_server.c:47(file_server_smbd_done)
file_server smbd daemon exited normally
[2013/05/15 20:48:38, 0]
../source4/smbd/service_task.c:35(task_server_terminate)
task_server_terminate: [smbd child process exited]
[2013/05/15 20:48:38, 0] ../source4/smbd/server.c:210(samba_terminate)
samba_terminate: smbd child process exited
It looks like smbd starts and immediately exits.
Under /var/run/samba, a process file samba.pid remains but not a
smbd.pid file.
Although samba is not running, the pidfile is left there. As a
consequence, on further attempts to start samba using the script, it
complains that a pidfile already exists.
When samba is called by other means (/usr/sbin/samba or alternative init
scripts) it starts and runs correctly.
I am running 64bit CentOS 6.4.
Thank you for your work.
Nico Kadel-Garcia
May 15, 2013, 7:09:47 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Björn JACKE <b...@sernet.de> wrote:
> On 2013-05-14 at 13:51 -0300 Fernando Lozano sent off:
> On 2013-05-14 at 13:51 -0300 Fernando Lozano sent off:
>> Another question: if my CentOS server is using samba3 from sernet
>> repos, may I upgrade them using sernet samba4? Or should I uninstall
>> samba3 and do a clean install of samba4, redoing all configuration
>> manually?
>
> yes, the packages are upgradable from previous sernet packages and also from
> the distribution vendor packages.
It's not a trivial upgrade. I've been publishing SRPM components for
>> repos, may I upgrade them using sernet samba4? Or should I uninstall
>> samba3 and do a clean install of samba4, redoing all configuration
>> manually?
>
> yes, the packages are upgradable from previous sernet packages and also from
> the distribution vendor packages.
building backports to RHEL 6, based on the Fedora release of Samba
4.0.5, at https://github.com/nkadel/samba-4.0.5-srpm/. The
integration of full-blown domain controller features, for example, is
a build-time option that is disabled by default for the Fedora and my
SRPM, and there are significant incompatibilities between smb.conf
configuration options between Samba 3.x and Samba 4.x. Simply
upgrading in place is likely to create some real adventures in
configuration integration.
I'd recommend yanking a complete backup, especialliy of Samba 3.x
configurations, and especially using "testparm -v" to collect the
existing settings. Then do a clean re-installation and use "testparm
-v" to review the configuration changes.
Chris Fischer
May 23, 2013, 5:12:47 PM5/23/13
to
Am 15.05.2013 11:02, schrieb Björn JACKE:
> On 2013-05-14 at 13:51 -0300 Fernando Lozano sent off:
> On 2013-05-14 at 13:51 -0300 Fernando Lozano sent off:
>>> this is just a heads-up that SerNet does provide Samba 4 packages
>>> (including AD DC package) now.
>> It was told on the fedora user's list that the kerberos
>> implementation used by Fedora, RHEL and CentOS conflicts with the
>> samba one, and so Fedora was providing samba4 binaries without AD DC
>> support. This was related to the use of FreeIPA by Fedora and RHEL.
>>
>> So I wasn't expecting to see packages with AD DC support for RHEL
>> and CentOS so soon. Thanks a lot!
>>
>> But how did you manage the kerberos problem? I see you repo provides
>> only samba4 packages, and do not replace any other library or daemin
>> from CentOS and RHEL.
>
> our samba packages use the heimdal that is shipped with s4, we don't use the
> system krb libs.
>
>
>> Or would the problem be present only on newer Fedora releases, and
>> not on RHEL6 (yet)? Would this be related to the fact servnet does
>> not provide samba4 packages for Fedora, or you simply don't package
>> anything for Fedora?
>
> theoretically red hat could also ship a s4 ad dc with built in heimdal kdc but
> afaik they are working on MIT integration.
>
>
>>> (including AD DC package) now.
>> It was told on the fedora user's list that the kerberos
>> implementation used by Fedora, RHEL and CentOS conflicts with the
>> samba one, and so Fedora was providing samba4 binaries without AD DC
>> support. This was related to the use of FreeIPA by Fedora and RHEL.
>>
>> So I wasn't expecting to see packages with AD DC support for RHEL
>> and CentOS so soon. Thanks a lot!
>>
>> But how did you manage the kerberos problem? I see you repo provides
>> only samba4 packages, and do not replace any other library or daemin
>> from CentOS and RHEL.
>
> our samba packages use the heimdal that is shipped with s4, we don't use the
> system krb libs.
>
>
>> Or would the problem be present only on newer Fedora releases, and
>> not on RHEL6 (yet)? Would this be related to the fact servnet does
>> not provide samba4 packages for Fedora, or you simply don't package
>> anything for Fedora?
>
> theoretically red hat could also ship a s4 ad dc with built in heimdal kdc but
> afaik they are working on MIT integration.
>
>
>> Another question: if my CentOS server is using samba3 from sernet
>> repos, may I upgrade them using sernet samba4? Or should I uninstall
>> samba3 and do a clean install of samba4, redoing all configuration
>> manually?
>
> yes, the packages are upgradable from previous sernet packages and also from
> the distribution vendor packages.
>
> Björn
>> repos, may I upgrade them using sernet samba4? Or should I uninstall
>> samba3 and do a clean install of samba4, redoing all configuration
>> manually?
>
> yes, the packages are upgradable from previous sernet packages and also from
> the distribution vendor packages.
>
>
>
>
Hi list, hi Björn,
will it later be possible to use samba4 packages from the distribution
when released, as distribution maintained packages mostly have less
dependency problems or Sernet decides to stop providing binary packages.
Or is the internal structure a bit "proprietary" and the decision to use
your packages not reversibel.
Regards,
Chris
0 new messages