On 2015/07/15 12:45, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote: > Giovanni Bechis <giova...@paclan.it> writes: > > > On 07/15/15 19:25, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote: > >> > >> So yesterday I looked at the ports that make use of samba. Turns out > >> switching to samba4 should be easy. The only issues I'd hate to see > >> would be weak architecture support (__sync_fetch_and_blah...). > >> Anyway, this is a post-5.8 change. > >> > > will samba3 still be available ? > > Heh, sorry for not mentioning this. As far as I'm concerned, it's > either samba3 or samba4; don't count on me to deal with this > nightmare. :)
Supporting alternative versions of ports that provide libraries is fiddly and trouble-prone, even in those cases where those ports are using a sane build system (i.e. not like samba's!). > > From my latest tests there is no network browsing with a Samba4 AD server > > (at least till 4.1.18, I haven't tested 4.2.x) and a samba3 nmbd could be > > used as a workaround. > > I was not aware of this. nmbd comes from source3/, so that would be > a regression. > > I won't have a windows box handy to reproduce this until... august. Do > others experience the same problem? Is that this https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/FAQ#Why_is_Network_Neighbourhood_empty_or_does_not_show_all_machines_in_an_Samba_AD_environment.3F (i.e. functionality not implemented in the AD DC yet)? Can you just run samba4 as an NT4-type DC instead? I don't see a reason why that would be any worse than running samba3 as an NT4-type DC.
