[Bug 1065551] New: Samba daemon should be started as foreground process from smb.service
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1065551 Bug ID: 1065551 Summary: Samba daemon should be started as foreground process from smb.service Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Tumbleweed Version: Current Hardware: Other OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Samba Assignee: samba-maintainers@SuSE.de Reporter: stefan.bruens@rwth-aachen.de QA Contact: samba-maintainers@SuSE.de Found By: --- Blocker: --- Currently, smbd is explicitly started as daemon, due to the options specified in /etc/sysconfig/samba. systemd complains: systemd[1]: smb.service: Supervising process 4324 which is not our child. We'll most likely not notice when it exits. When smbd is started as foreground process (-F), the warning vanishes -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1065551 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1065551#c1 Aurelien Aptel <aaptel@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |IN_PROGRESS CC| |aaptel@suse.com --- Comment #1 from Aurelien Aptel <aaptel@suse.com> --- Sounds reasonable. I've made an patch on our internal sources. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1065551 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1065551#c2 David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ddiss@suse.com --- Comment #2 from David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.com> --- Please remember to also raise this upstream, via a patch to the samba/packaging/systemd - I'd be great if we could eventually get rid of the downstream SUSE systemd services/configs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1065551 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1065551#c3 David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ceph-bugs@suse.de --- Comment #3 from David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.com> --- In the meantime, Andreas has also fixed this upstream via: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13129 ...the upstream fix adds a required --no-process-group parameter to the systemd service files, and also adds support for running the s4 Samba daemon in the foreground. We really should just drop the downstream service files and migrate to upstream - we could use X.service.in templates for handling cross-distro path differences. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1065551 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1065551#c4 Aurelien Aptel <aaptel@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |samba-maintainers@SuSE.de Assignee|samba-maintainers@SuSE.de |aaptel@suse.com --- Comment #4 from Aurelien Aptel <aaptel@suse.com> --- I remember seeing that patch posted on samba-tech. I'll look into backporting that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1065551 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1065551#c5 --- Comment #5 from Aurelien Aptel <aaptel@suse.com> --- Our unit files still slightly differ. I'm not sure its worth the effort to use the ones in samba-git and add things to them via sed or something. On the other hand the commit that adds support for not creating a process group is useful and should be backported. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1065551 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1065551#c6 --- Comment #6 from David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.com> --- (In reply to Aurelien Aptel from comment #5)
Our unit files still slightly differ. I'm not sure its worth the effort to use the ones in samba-git and add things to them via sed or something.
How significant is the diff? I'd be very happy to just drop the files that we have downstream. If it's just the binary paths, then replacement (with the waf configured values) should be just be a matter of using https://waf.io/apidocs/TaskGen.html#waflib.TaskGen.process_subst . -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1065551 Aurelien Aptel <aaptel@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1071090 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
participants (1)
-
bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com