Lars M����������������������� wrote:
Try to be exact!
3.5.7 did not got this fix. A later 3.5.x version might have gotten it.
--- That fix went in in 3.5.4. It's been in since maybe April/May of 2010. (over a year ago).
This is not broken. Read 'our' [sic] Who is "our"??? -- you pointed at a Feb 10,2010 announcement that said all future versions would be fixed. Um...this is Aug 2010...18 months later...
samba.org announcement. The one I quoted. Read it, read it twice
--- Yeah, an you need to read the date it came out. Feb5, 2010. That's over 18 months ago.... Don't think it is in 3.5.7, before blowing me off and making your self out to be a fool, did you bother checking sources? Neh...it's just linda...I can blow her off anyday, what does she know? Ishtar:law> ll /suse lrwxrwxrwx 1 8 Jun 19 11:20 /suse -> suse11.4/ Ishtar:law> cd /suse/src/ Ishtar:/suse/src> rpm -ihv samba-3.5.7-1.17.1.src.rpm 1:samba ########################################### [100%] Ishtar:/suse/src> cd /home/packages/ Ishtar:packages> rpmbuild -bp specs/samba.spec ...
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.G8JGwe#55> /usr/bin/pbzip2 -dc /usr/src/packages/SOURCES/samba-3.5.7/patches.tar.bz2 drwxr-xr-x lmuelle/users 0 2011-02-28 08:14 patches/ -rw-r--r-- lmuelle/users 2109 2011-02-28 08:14 patches/series drwxr-xr-x lmuelle/users 0 2011-02-28 08:14 patches/samba.org/
[[[Gee wonder who lmuelle is?]]] Ishtar:packages> cd build/samba-3.5.7/source3/param Ishtar:packages/../source3/param> tail -30 loadparm.c void widelinks_warning(int snum) { if (lp_unix_extensions() && lp_widelinks_internal(snum)) { DEBUG(0,("Share '%s' has wide links and unix extensions enabled. " "These parameters are incompatible. " "Wide links will be disabled for this share.\n", lp_servicename(snum) )); } } bool lp_widelinks(int snum) { /* wide links is always incompatible with unix extensions */ if (lp_unix_extensions()) { return false; } return lp_widelinks_internal(snum); } ---------------------------------------------- Sure looks like Samba 3.5.7 has them disabled to me....maybe you ought to check out the code before putting foot in mouth? I ran into this bug "fix" [sic]. So I set about creating patch to push into samba so next time Suse fed me a distro, it wouldn't have a broken samba...at least not in this way... Was my own damn fault for not doing it a year ago, but ... I'd hoped someone else would do it and for some reason... since I have a hard enough time tracking all this stuff and keeping my own systems running, fighing what are often uphill political battles with people who tell me I don't know what I'm talking about -- until I shove the source under their nose -- they they usually blackball me in some other way...saying "I'm dangerous"...whatever.. Yeah, I uncover, report really argue against incompatible feature changes... and sometimes submit patches, but when , some cases, the project owner has decided that incompatibility is a good thing, I rarely have a chance. I d/l' ed source from samba site, 1st against 3.5.9, then patched against 3.6.0, now am trying to get back running in 3.5.10, as 3.6.0 hosed my user db. THAT BUG 'fix' [sic] was at the root of my unending samba problems since I upgraded to 11.4! YES IS IS BROKEN in 3.5.7 you destroyer of kitchens! (who then blames such messes on others! ... lame!) It's been fixed in ALL the code since 3.5.4.
Rather than just patching my code, I submitted a fix for this against the samba base tree: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8229 I also asked that it be included (it applies w/an offset, into the 3.5 series, but was too late to catch 3.5.11).
3.5.11 and openSUSE 11.4 had?
3.5.7...and when was the bug fixed? 3.5.4, and what version was out on samba site by time I ran into 3.5.7 having widelinks broken? 3.5.9, what were they releasing -- 3.6.0. What did I try to do when 3.6 was broken -- go back to 3.5 -- which was already at 3.5.10 -- what did I try to do too late before 3.5.11 went out? Get the patch into the 3.5 series, as I figured it might be useful for those those not wanting to move to the new and unstable 3.6 series. I'd like to see it back into the 3.4 series as well, but I'm less likely to persue that as I don't use it and wouldn't be able to give it a fair testing.
Any further question? No? Then walk on there is ice cream in the fridge and drinks are on the balkony. ;)
Me loves people who mess up the kitchen and don't clean up afterwards ...
---- Me l0ves samba experts who claim they know things -- and don't even bother to check sources before spouting off about how other people are wrong. I used to do that ... about... 15-20 years ago...realized it made me look sorta stupid, ya know? THIS is WHY I said alot of things broke in 11.4.... you guys have no clue what you are packaging...it's changing so rapidly...and it isn't backward compat -- the new BASH4.1 isn't backwards compat with Bash3.0-4.0, in how it handles errors with "-e" and calculations. It decided to follow the new POSIX standard which applies -e to all statements, not just "simple statements" as the old standard did -- which means if you use calc statements in bash like "let a=0" or ((a=0)) and have "set -e turned on -- your script will be forceably terminated. I used to use exit -1/return-1 for a non-determinant or internal error code, leaving 1-xxx for the normal errno values, (-1, -2, start counting down from 255 -- 254, 253...etc)... But in bash 4.1 -- it checks for the validity of parameters on the "return statement" (which takes no parameters, BTW, no more than exit does). So 'return', as of 4.1 won't take "-1", though exit still will. A whole bunch of little changes that resulting several scripts going sideways once Suse 11.4 was installed. There were lots of cases like this. I used to use ((xxxx)) in various places for computation -- NO place did I check if it's end value was '0'...those all die now if I run with "-ue" -- which I often do as a 'sanity check'... The new posix which bash didn't conform to in 11.3, (not as fully, anyway), isn't compatible with the POSIX of the previous 10-15 years -- thus any portable scripts written over that time may be broken under the new standard. Anyway -- that's just another example of a prog that broke in 11.4. And like samba, I bet no one at suse even knew about it. (yeah, I'm being a bitch, but I think I'm allowed to be tired of being told I don't know what I'm talking about when it is clear, I often do -- and those accusing me are living in code from 2 years ago)... (ok...it's also way late...and way past my daily expiration date....)... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org