[Bug 668674] New: Samba RPMs are build without libcap
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674#c0 Summary: Samba RPMs are build without libcap Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE 11.3 Version: Final Platform: x86-64 OS/Version: openSUSE 11.3 Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Samba AssignedTo: samba-maintainers@SuSE.de ReportedBy: Ralf.Friedl@online.de QAContact: samba-maintainers@SuSE.de Found By: --- Blocker: --- User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; de-AT; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 SeaMonkey/1.1.19 The Samba RPMs in 11.3 and in Factory are build without libcap. One consequence of this is that leases on files with a different owner fail. From man fcntl: "An unprivileged process may only take out a lease on a file whose UID (owner) matches the file system UID of the process." When libcap-devel is present at compile time, Samba will accqure the capability to get the lease anyway. So libcap-devel should be added to the requirements for the Samba SRPM. On a related note, automake/autoconf is also necessary to build, but then the build will fail and not produce a program with reduced functionality. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Try a lease (oplock) on a file with a different owner. Actual Results: oplock fails. Expected Results: oplock succeeds. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674#c1
Lars Müller
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674#c
Lars Müller
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674#c2
Georg Weickelt
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674#c3
--- Comment #3 from Ralf Friedl
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674#c
Georg Weickelt
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674#c
Georg Weickelt
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674#c4
Lars Müller
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674#c5
Georg Weickelt
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674#c6
--- Comment #6 from Ralf Friedl
Feel free to reopen if you don't agree on the resolution. Well, of course I don't agree on the resolution.
From the Samba manual regarding kernel oplocks: This parameter defaults to on... You should never need to touch this
Not using SMB oplocks brings a huge performance penalty for some applications, as in taking minutes instead of seconds. There is functionality in the kernel for oplocks, and in Samba to use these kernel oplocks, and it is enabled by default in Samba and in the Suse configuration for Samba. parameter. Disabling kernel oplocks is just a hack the Samba developer suggested because he didn't think that someone would disable the present functions in Samba to handle this case correctly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674#c
Georg Weickelt
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668674#c7
Jakob Haufe
participants (1)
-
bugzilla_noreply@novell.com