Re: [Samba] self compiled 4.10.3 replication failure.
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 17:44:53 +0100
- From: Rowland penny via samba <samba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Samba] self compiled 4.10.3 replication failure.
On 21/05/2019 17:06, me@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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
everything gets put into /usr/local/samba by default. It is not
over top of any system components.
Not that I recommend this as a standard practice but if you totally
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
that it works. :-)
Obviously if you do that to a DC that is joined to a domain, you
that to clean up.
The 2 things that I have found that I need to set outside of
are the $PATH and 2 symlinks for winbind. Both of these are documented
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
that I have not needed to do anything else for a DC. For a file server
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
RHEL has always been behind as far as an AD DC is concerned because of
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
why people are making this all so hard. I understand that pre-built
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
If I did not have something like ansible to allow me to make the
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?
There is every chance, once I find out just what the required packages
There was some talk of this happening automatically, but this seems to
have not come to fruition yet.
You and me both, I think the problem is that using python3 is so new
that problems like this are bound to crop up because nobody realised
they needed fixing.
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
but the samba-tool dns module would not work.
I kinda thought the configure script would complain if I was missing
the required python3 bits but it did not.
Not sure, it sort of depends on what it checks for, if it is supposed to
check for python3.x which is required for the build and it isn't found
and the compile succeeds, then it probably is a bug. If however the
missing component is something required by a script that is only run on
a running system, then it isn't really a bug, it is a lack of a dependency.
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