On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:13:13 +
Tom Evans articulated:
> Hi all
>
> I was updating ports one of my boxes last night, and it informed me
> that net/samba3 is no more. Unlike usual, there was no
> /usr/ports/UPDATING entry to tell nubbins like me how to cope with
>
Hi all
I was updating ports one of my boxes last night, and it informed me
that net/samba3 is no more. Unlike usual, there was no
/usr/ports/UPDATING entry to tell nubbins like me how to cope with
this missing port.
There is still net/samba34 and net/samba35. I tried to get portupgrade
to
I'm wondering why it installs samba 3.0 instead of the latest
release in the samba 3 branch like other ports do.
Regards
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and i
force workaround was to manually add
'lib/samba/vfs/recycle.so' to the '/net/samba3/pkg-plist' file.
I know this is not the proper thing to do, but it works for getting a
package built. I would have preferred a tweak to the Makefile that
would
work for everyone, but I'm afraid
in the package.
> I found a brute force workaround was to manually add
> 'lib/samba/vfs/recycle.so' to the '/net/samba3/pkg-plist' file.
> I know this is not the proper thing to do, but it works for getting a
> package built. I would have preferred a tweak to the M
tory?
Scot
Scot,
The problem was not getting the VFS modules compiled, but rather
getting them installed.
I found a brute force workaround was to manually add 'lib/samba/vfs/
recycle.so' to the '/net/samba3/pkg-plist' file.
I know this is not the proper thing to
On 9/25/08, Erik Van Benschoten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I have been looking into setting up a network recycle bin under v3.0.32 of
> Samba. The default configuration does not install/package any of the VFS
> modules from the looks of it. The man pages are there for them, but n
Greetings,
I have been looking into setting up a network recycle bin under
v3.0.32 of Samba. The default configuration does not install/package
any of the VFS modules from the looks of it. The man pages are there
for them, but not the actual binaries. After looking at the Makefile I
trie
Uwe Laverenz wrote:
> I know. I'm sorry if you got the impression I wouldn't appreciate your
> work. I guess my English is just too clumsy to be precise enough
> sometimes.
Fair enough. :) Your english is great, and I don't even speak german,
never mind writing it, so I'm not in a position to cri
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:14:56AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> Well boo hoo! If you're smart enough to be useful in testing new
> versions, you're smart enough to modify the port yourself, or build
> the software without the port.
Yes, I guess that's true.
> Sorry to be so flippant, but this who
Uwe Laverenz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 03:54:25PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> I think it's very reasonable, and well in keeping with FreeBSD
>> tradition, to delay upgrading to a new release of ported software
>> until the maintainer is convinced that it's safe to do so. I have
>
> Yes,
Doug Barton wrote:
Timur I. Bakeyev wrote:
Unfortunately, Samba3 became so big and hairy, that fixing one problem
there creates few new. So, for the last ~10 releases this was pretty
common situation when erratra release was following very quickly.
I think it's very reasonable, and well in ke
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 03:54:25PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> I think it's very reasonable, and well in keeping with FreeBSD
> tradition, to delay upgrading to a new release of ported software
> until the maintainer is convinced that it's safe to do so. I have
Yes, but on the other hand it is th
Timur I. Bakeyev wrote:
> Unfortunately, Samba3 became so big and hairy, that fixing one problem
> there creates few new. So, for the last ~10 releases this was pretty
> common situation when erratra release was following very quickly.
I think it's very reasonable, and well in keeping with FreeBS
.0.25 port was committed, shortly after samba released
> > > 3.0.25a. There seems to be quite a number of problems fixed in
> > > 3.0.25a.
> >
> > And:
> >
> > Re: ports/113358: MAINTAINER-UPDATE: Update of net/samba3 to 3.0.25a version
> >
> >
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:37:03AM +0200, Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
> On 2007.06.05 10:22:44 +0200, Timur I. Bakeyev wrote:
>
> BTW. in cases like this, where the maintainer want to fix a security
> issue but would prefer to wait with a full upgrade, you might want to
> try and poke the FreeBSD Secu
common situation when erratra release was following very quickly.
> >I'm planning to ressurect net/samba3-devel port to put latest releases there,
> >leaving net/samba3 for proven to work releases.
>
> I don't think this issues are related.
> If you feel you should,
5a. There seems to be quite a number of problems fixed in
> 3.0.25a.
And:
Re: ports/113358: MAINTAINER-UPDATE: Update of net/samba3 to 3.0.25a version
just arrived. Fell free to try it and test.
With regards,
Timur Bakeyev.
Hi Timur,
Greatly appreciated! grabbed the diff, now building, wi
ting here).
I'm planning to ressurect net/samba3-devel port to put latest releases there,
leaving net/samba3 for proven to work releases.
I don't think this issues are related.
If you feel you should, then obviously go ahead, but, as I see it, both
3.0.25 and 3.0.25a would have gone
On 2007.06.05 10:22:44 +0200, Timur I. Bakeyev wrote:
> I would like to stress, that after problems with the last Samba releases
> I decided to delay new port for at least one week to collect feedback
> from mailing lists and other sources, as well as from developers to see,
> if there are no fata
3.0.25a.
And:
Re: ports/113358: MAINTAINER-UPDATE: Update of net/samba3 to 3.0.25a version
just arrived. Fell free to try it and test.
With regards,
Timur Bakeyev.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinf
lopers to see,
if there are no fatal problems with the release. Unfortunately, with
security updates we can't wait too long, thus 3.0.25 slipped into the
ports collection, although it possibly shouldn't.
I'm planning to ressurect net/samba3-devel port to put latest releases there,
Hi All,
Is anything known on an upgrade of the samba3 port to samba 3.0.25a?
When the 3.0.25 port was committed, shortly after samba released
3.0.25a. There seems to be quite a number of problems fixed in
3.0.25a.
Kind regards,
Spil.
___
freebsd-ports
On 9/14/06, [LoN]Kamikaze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It strikes me that if ports were named net/samba3 and net/samba4 people
would simply assume that net/samba4 is their way to go.
Maybe a meta port net/samba that always points to the latest stable
release would solve that.
We'v
Timur I. Bakeyev wrote:
> Hi Vasil!
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:13:36AM +0300, Vasil Dimov wrote:
>>> Description:
>> Since net/samba (version 2) got purged we can rename net/samba3 to
>> net/samba.
>
> The question of renaming Samba3 port arises again
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 02:26:59AM +0200, Timur I. Bakeyev wrote:
> Hi Vasil!
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:13:36AM +0300, Vasil Dimov wrote:
> >
> > >Description:
> >
> > Since net/samba (version 2) got purged we can rename net/samba3 to
> > net/s
Hi Vasil!
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:13:36AM +0300, Vasil Dimov wrote:
>
> >Description:
>
> Since net/samba (version 2) got purged we can rename net/samba3 to
> net/samba.
The question of renaming Samba3 port arises again and again. This time
you actually did a tremendous
Greetings!
I have a samba3 installation acting as a domain member server, which
is joined to a samba3 PDC on the same subnet.
If I attempt to restart samba with /usr/local/etc/rc.d/samba restart,
I get the following when I attempt to browse it:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% sudo /usr/local/etc/rc.d/samba
Hi, Ulrich!
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 09:25:26PM +0200, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
>
> The function "checkyesno" cannot handle undefined variables and will
> thus print an error. This will happen ON EVERY machine that samba3 is
> installed, but there is no samba_enable="YES/NO" line in rc.conf.
>
> T
Bill Blue wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:25:01 -0700, Rainer Alves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Mike Jakubik wrote:
> >>The startup script for Samba states:
> >[...]
> >>However when setting samba_enable="YES" in rc.conf, the restart option does
> >>not function
> >>correctly, as it only res
22:17:48 bsd root: /etc/rc: WARNING: $samba_enable is not set
properly - see rc.conf(5).
I ran into this too. First, net/samba is an old 2* version which should
not be used. Instead use net/samba3 cvsup'd to 3.0.2.3.
Next, remove anything having to do with samba, smbd, nmbd from /e
Mike Jakubik wrote:
The startup script for Samba states:
[...]
However when setting samba_enable="YES" in rc.conf, the restart option
does not function correctly, as it only restarts smbd. If we instead set
the alternative of nmbd_enable="YES" and smbd_enable="YES", we get the
following warni
The startup script for Samba states:
---
#
# Add the following lines to /etc/rc.conf to enable samba:
#
#samba_enable="YES"
#
# or, for fine grain control
#
#nmbd_enable="YES"
#smbd_enable="YES"
#
---
However when setting samba_enable="YES" in rc.conf, the restart option
does not function corre
33 matches
Mail list logo
