Topic: samba package update

[eiceic]

My SME 7.1.3 users are having an issue with saving Excel sheets on an ibay - it's reporting the file may have been changed by another user, when it hasn't..  I googled it and found out it's a Samba issue resolved in version 3.0.11

I checked to see what version I had
[root@rdsql ~]# rpm -qa | grep -i samba
samba-3.0.10-1.4E.11
samba-client-3.0.10-1.4E.11
e-smith-samba-1.14.0-26.el4.sme
samba-common-3.0.10-1.4E.11

And then I checked to see what's available and
[root@rdsql ~]# yum check-update | grep -i samba
samba.i386                               3.0.10-1.4E.12.2       updates
samba-client.i386                        3.0.10-1.4E.12.2       updates
samba-common.i386                        3.0.10-1.4E.12.2       updates

If I understand things right, this means that the default yum repositories don't point to a version that's new enough to fix this...   can I just download the 3.0.11 samba rpm  and install that or should I point to a different repository and do a yum update *samba*?   Is upgrading just samba a risky thing to do?

Thanks,

Chris Buechler

[eiceic]

I see that CentOS jumped from samba version 3.0.10 to version 3.0.23c in their 5.0 release...

Package                     5.0               4.5        3.8          2.0
samba (3.0.25a)    3.0.23c    3.0.10      3.0.9    2.2.7

Two part question:  (1) which will be the first SME version that is based on 5.x CentOS and (2) should I assume that samba 3.0.23c is a good stable release of samba since it was picked by CentOS?

Thanks,

Chris Buechler

[raem]

Chris

You should report your problem and findings in the bug tracker, so the developers etc can review it and perhaps give the advice you are seeking re the packages in future/new releases of sme.

[eiceic]

Hi Ray,

If it's a known samba 3.0.10 bug that was resolved in 3.0.11  and CentOS 5 has already moved on to 3.0.23, would it help the SME developers to report it as a bug or would it just distract them from making a new release based on CentOS 5.  

I'm still trying to figure out the lay of the land around here.  Are you involved at all in the bug list processing or future development?  I just don't want to step on any toes by submitting bug reports and wasting anyone's time if it's an old samba bug but I will gladly do it if the SME bug list people want it on there..

Thanks,

Chris Buechler

[raem]

Chris

It has been said many many many times by developers themselves to report problems (of any sort) to the bug tracker, and the developers have even been actively discouraging people from answering problems in the forums that are potential bugs.
From the developers point of view the bug tracker is the correct place to deal with all issues as it has proper recording & tracking etc, they will very quickly tell you it's not a bug or that they will not be doing anything about it if they believe that to be the case.

The developers have also said that they don't necessarily read the forums as they don't have time to waste, so if you are expecting a developer to answer you here, then you will need to be lucky.

Your problem is clearly a bug (as your research has indicated), maybe not directly with the base code but certainly with how external software uses the base code, so the bug tracker is the place for it.
It's up to the developers to answer what they intend or don't intend to do about it, and I'm not a developer so I can't answer that.

[byte]

Another person here...

http://bugs.contribs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3060

*seems* to be having a similar issue, have a read see if it fits your pattern...

[kruhm]

FYI-it's not a bug, it's an OPLOCK issue.

edit etc/samba/smb.conf
Veto oplock files = /*.xls/*.XLS/

Either search the forum or google for more info.

There used to be an advanced workgroup package around for the smb.conf. I'll search for the source package to see if I can't update it.

[shell]

http://forums.contribs.org/index.php?topic=36140.0

The above forum discussion has a number of fixes reported as working.  I mentioned the M$ fix (which worked for me) and also there are db oplock instructions - which is much nicer as its fixed at the server as opposed to each m$ machine.

[stephen noble]

>FYI-it's not a bug, it's an OPLOCK issue.

It's still a bug,
file it in documentation

[kruhm]

true.

filed: http://bugs.contribs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3075

[JohnG]

For what it's worth, I have a test SME 7.2 running the latest stable Samba, 3.0.25b.  Here's what I did:

Code: [Select]

logged in as root:

mkdir johngsamba
cd johngsamba
wget http://ftp.sernet.de/pub/samba/centos4-i386/libsmbclient-3.0.25b-33.i386.rpm
wget http://ftp.sernet.de/pub/samba/centos4-i386/samba3-client-3.0.25b-33.i386.rpm
wget http://ftp.sernet.de/pub/samba/centos4-i386/samba3-3.0.25b-33.i386.rpm
wget http://ftp.sernet.de/pub/samba/centos4-i386/samba3-winbind-3.0.25b-33.i386.rpm
rpm -Uvh libsmbclient-3.0.25b-33.i386.rpm
service smb stop
rpm -ev samba-client
rpm -ev --nodeps samba
rpm -ev --nodeps samba-common
rpm -Uvh samba3-client-3.0.25b-33.i386.rpm
rpm -Uvh samba3-winbind-3.0.25b-33.i386.rpm
rpm -Uvh samba3-3.0.25b-33.i386.rpm
cd /etc/samba/
mv smb.conf smb.conf_johng_25b
mv smbusers smbusers_johng_25b
mv smb.conf.rpmsave smb.conf
mv smbusers.rpmsave smbusers
service smb start

smbd -V

It's been going for a few days and allows Vista clients to join the domain straight out of the box, no changes necessary. So far so good but I haven't done much testing on it.

Try at your own risk...

[pfloor]

Also be aware that Office 2007 and BitDefender Antivirus don't play well together (regardlees of the samba version).  There have been multiple bug reports to BitDefender but they haven't fixed the issue as of yet.

AFAIK the only way to save Office 2007 files to SME if you run BD is to disable BD.

-Paul