> Problem: we currently have no etch branch..:)
Of course we have one. My SVN copy was just outdated..:)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
tags 368251 pending
thanks
Quoting Christian Perrier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > And, yes, adding a warning that large sites may have performance
> > > issues with these settings would be good.
> >
> > Oh, ok. Yes, no objections.
>
> The point then becomes: should we close #38625 with that fix
> > And, yes, adding a warning that large sites may have performance
> > issues with these settings would be good.
>
> Oh, ok. Yes, no objections.
The point then becomes: should we close #38625 with that fix ?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 06:05:19PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > > That sounds like a good reason to me, and doesn't seem like something
> > > we should override in the Debian package?
> > Perhaps add the options commented out and with a warning that large
> > sites may get a performance hit
> > That sounds like a good reason to me, and doesn't seem like something
> > we should override in the Debian package?
>
> Perhaps add the options commented out and with a warning that large
> sites may get a performance hit?
My proposal was inded to add these option as part of the *currently
c
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 11:57:22PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 08:47:13AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
>
> > >> Do we understand why these are no longer the built-in defaults
> > >> upstream?
>
> > > If I were to guess I think maybe for performance reasons at large
>
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 08:47:13AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> >> Do we understand why these are no longer the built-in defaults upstream?
> > If I were to guess I think maybe for performance reasons at large sites.
> Seems to me that this is what I heard once in Jerry Carter's mouth, yes.
>> Do we understand why these are no longer the built-in defaults upstream?
>
> If I were to guess I think maybe for performance reasons at large sites.
Seems to me that this is what I heard once in Jerry Carter's mouth, yes.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "uns
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 07:23:45AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
As a winbind user, I think that these should be interesting defaults
to add to the default smb.conf, yes.
We can't do anything for existing configurations. Adding options to an
existing smb.conf (during a
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 07:23:45AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> As a winbind user, I think that these should be interesting defaults
> to add to the default smb.conf, yes.
> We can't do anything for existing configurations. Adding options to an
> existing smb.conf (during an upgrade) is reall
You need to make sure you have the following settings in your
/etc/samba/smb.conf file:
winbind enum groups = yes
winbind enum users = yes
As a winbind user, I think that these should be interesting defaults
to add to the default smb.conf, yes.
We can't do anything for existi
Quoting Jim Barber ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Hi.
>
> I just noticed this bug report when looking through to solve another
> problem of mine.
> I too encountered this problem in the past but it was fairly easy to fix.
> You need to make sure you have the following settings in your
> /etc/samba/smb.c
Hi.
I just noticed this bug report when looking through to solve another problem of
mine.
I too encountered this problem in the past but it was fairly easy to fix.
You need to make sure you have the following settings in your
/etc/samba/smb.conf file:
winbind enum groups = yes
Package: winbind
Version: 3.0.22-1
When using winbind 3.0.22-1, some users' groups are not reported
correctly:
chinstrap:~# wbinfo -r jdoe
10001
10029
10009
10077
10035
chinstrap:~# id jdoe
uid=11715(jdoe) gid=10001(Domain Users) groups=10001(Domain Users)
The following appears in /var/log/samba
14 matches
Mail list logo
