Koozali.org: home of the SME Server

Obsolete Releases => SME Server 9.x => Topic started by: ilconte on October 29, 2013, 11:44:44 PM

Title: samba 4
Post by: ilconte on October 29, 2013, 11:44:44 PM

hello in sme server 9 is in future integrated samba 4

thanks

Title: Re: samba 4
Post by: Stefano on October 30, 2013, 12:14:21 AM

Likely no,  it will not..

Title: Re: samba 4
Post by: nicolatiana on October 30, 2013, 06:50:19 AM

At the present time none of the main-stream/commercial (Rh/Centos, OpenSuse/Sles . . .) distributions is packaged with Samba 4.

Nicola

Title: Re: samba 4
Post by: gzartman on December 20, 2013, 06:54:54 PM

Quote from: Stefano on October 30, 2013, 12:14:21 AM

Likely no,  it will not..

I wouldn't say that.   It is on my todo list.   Samba 4 is backward compatible with Samba 3, so it wouldn't take much work to move SME to Samba 4 and leave the existing config largely intact.  I think this is actually a good route to go as we won't break anything, but we set ourselves up with a platform for future expansion.

Greg

Title: Re: samba 4
Post by: gzartman on December 20, 2013, 06:59:21 PM

Quote from: nicolatiana on October 30, 2013, 06:50:19 AM

At the present time none of the main-stream/commercial (Rh/Centos, OpenSuse/Sles . . .) distributions is packaged with Samba 4.

Nicola

That's not correct.  Centos ships with both:  http://centos.arcticnetwork.ca/6.5/os/x86_64/Packages/ 

Our competition, ClearOS and Zyntyal, both install Samba 4 in the default install. 

We need to be going to Samba 4 as a project sooner rather than later.

Greg

Title: Re: samba 4
Post by: CharlieBrady on December 21, 2013, 02:33:20 AM

Quote from: gzartman on December 20, 2013, 06:59:21 PM

We need to be going to Samba 4 as a project sooner rather than later.

So we need an open bug in the bug tracker, and someone analyzing what needs to be done to achieve that.

Title: Re: samba 4
Post by: johnp on December 21, 2013, 04:30:18 AM

Good stuff to hear discussd.

Bug 8075 added per Charlie's suggestion