Quoting Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > reopen 476334 > thanks Well.....
> Given that this is a segfault in the server, we probably want to have a > closer look at this instead of writing it off as a win2k8 bug. Not exactly this is a w2k8 bug, but this is asking a version of samba that's prior to w2k8 to work properly with it. Seeing the number of Samba developers around who are actively working on w2k8 stuff, I think we can quite safely assume that hiccups with w2k8 *will* happen in any samba release as of now. > Unfortunately, so far it's only been reproduced with an older (etch) version > of Samba, which makes it even harder to debug, but I think we still ought to > be sure before dismissing the bug. Well, from Brian explanations, there is no chance that someone ever tries to reproduce the bug so I really fail to see what benefit we have in keeping it... I think we shouldn't really deal with bugs involving w2k8 until upstream has claimed for "full" supprot.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
