Re: [Samba] self compiled 4.10.3 replication failure.
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 12:06:47 -0400 (EDT)
- From: Tom Diehl via samba <samba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Samba] self compiled 4.10.3 replication failure.
On Tue, 21 May 2019, Rowland penny via samba wrote:
On 21/05/2019 01:11, Tom Diehl via samba wrote:
Whilst you can just run './configure' and have everything put into
/usr/local/samba, if RHEL is like Debian, this comes with a couple of
problems. You have to ensure that '$PATH' points to /usr/local/samba first
and various things still expect to find Samba from the distro packages (gvfs
is one, if I remember correctly).
Here's where I disagree. When you run ./configure, make and make install
everything gets put into /usr/local/samba by default. It is not installed
over top of any system components.
Not that I recommend this as a standard practice but if you totally screw
pooch on a build for whatever reason all you have to do is
rm -r /usr/local/samba and you get to start over. I have tested this and
that it works. :-)
Obviously if you do that to a DC that is joined to a domain, you have more
that to clean up.
The 2 things that I have found that I need to set outside of /usr/local/samba
are the $PATH and 2 symlinks for winbind. Both of these are documented on the
wiki (Thank you). If you use some type of configuration management such as ansible to
build the DCs you do not even have to think about setting these. Other than
that I have not needed to do anything else for a DC. For a file server I use
the distro supplied packages.
I do not know about the gvfs stuff. Since I only build dedicated DCs.
The problem, as I see it, is that RHEL is a bit late to the party and is
where Debian was 5 years ago. On top of this is the extra problem of python3.
RHEL has always been behind as far as an AD DC is concerned because of the
Once methods to build Samba packages on RHEL are learnt, we will probably
look back and ask 'what was the problem' ;-)
Having read this list for the last couple of years, I am starting to wonder
why people are making this all so hard. I understand that pre-built packages are
most desirable. I am a firm believer of that but in the case of a samba AD DC
building rpms seems like a lot of extra work for little return.
If I did not have something like ansible to allow me to make the builds repeatable
and automated I might think differently but this works for me. :-)
Rowland, any chance of getting
updated to reflect the package differences required for 4.10?
I simply enabled the epel-repository and substituted python3x-devel for
python-devel and added python3x-dns.
The python3x-dns package was not obvious but without it the build would succeed
but the samba-tool dns module would not work.
I kinda thought the configure script would complain if I was missing some of
the required python3 bits but it did not.
Is this a bug in the configure script or is this expected?
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the