[Bug 107] samba-3.0.1

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au
Fri Jan 2 04:05:58 PST 2004


On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:22:16PM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> I will look again (which source file and line?) and try to get your apparent 
> clue. But I have another one, this is the contents of /var/log/samba/log.smbd 
> with the "log level" parameter set to 10. It clearly indicates that smbd 
> 3.0.1 tried to create a memory keytab (when a Windows 2003 domain user 
> attempted to connect) and failed to do so. My opinion is that smbd should not 
> even attempt to do so at runtime, because of the autoconf check at compile 
> time.

Alexander, I have no clue as to the detail behind all this. I don't even use
kerberos yet. I was just test-building it and stumbled across what appeared
to be an obvious samba bug which I reported upstream like any good netizen
should do. All I know for sure is.. the autoconf macro in the bug report was
clearly reversed and therefore wrong. It is now right. If there are other
bugs in that autoconf macro checking code then that is a different issue and
worthy of a different bug report.

I just had a quick scan of samba bugzilla and saw this:

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=912

At a quick glance it looks identical to your problem. It at least has the
autoconf macro round the right way. Maybe it'll fix your problem!

> What do you see? My results: no error with FILE:/tmp/foo, "Unknown Key table 
> type" with other arguments.

Sorry, I've since thrown away that test build and cannot test right now.

> You could prevent this thread of offence by sending me mail just after I added 
> the comments to SAMBA's Bugzilla. This Bugzilla told me that it mailed a copy 
> of my comments to you. Have you received them by mail?

Yes, I saw it. But as I mentioned above, the new problem was clearly a
different issue exposed by the macro correction of which I had no knowledge
or experience.

> And even for LFS packages, there should be different procedures for testing 
> whether a new version is good and whether a known good version compiled 
> correctly. Builtin tests that are part of the LFS book serve the second 
> purpose quite well. But we just say "use a new version and see" when 
> upgrading.

Reminds me of an old Linus quote:

'"regression testing"? What's that? If it compiles, it is good, if it
boots up it is perfect'

:-)



More information about the blfs-book mailing list