[Pkg-samba-maint] Bug#249873: Bug#249873: Patch

[Christian PERRIER]

Quoting Nikolaus Rath (Nikolaus at rath.org):
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to help fix this, but I'm not quite sure what kind of patch
> you'd like to see here.

Thanks for your offer. I was planning to try fixing that bug myself as
I'm hit by it on some servers of mine (which I would like to set as
domain controllers for two different domains with two different samba
instances).

But I really appreciate this help offer and it's really welcomed.

> 
> If think the proper solution is to drop the fhs-filespaths.patch and
> make "private dir" default to upstreams layout, both in the installed
> smb.conf and in the binary.

Yes. However, if we could avoid adding something to smb.conf, it would
be good. We should default to upstream location (assuming that is is
correct wrt FHS, now, which I haven't checked).

> 
> For migration, there would be a postinst script that checks if we are
> updating from a previous package version and in that case either
> 
> - move the private dir from /var/lib/samba to the new default, or

Yes, and move the data that's in that directory, which is the tricky
part as we need to imagine all possible cases.

> 
> - adjust smb.conf such that "private dir" points to /var/lib/samba

I don't think we should change smb.conf in maintainer scripts.

> Which one would you prefer? Or were you thinking about something else
> entirely?


Clearly your first proposal.

The tricky point is: what to do if upstream doesn't default to
/etc/samba/private as we still have to respect the FHS. I'd rather
live with upstream's default temporarily, though, and convince them to
change the default to make it FHS-compliant...or configurable at build
time if it isn't yet).


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-samba-maint/attachments/20120424/73a4538a/attachment.pgp>