On ke, 13 huhti 2022, Peter Boy wrote:
> Am 13.04.2022 um 06:47 schrieb Alexander Bokovoy <abbra(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>
> On ti, 12 huhti 2022, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 08:43:25PM +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
>>> ...
>
> Please do not do that unconditionally. As I said already first time we
> discussed this topic, use of the registry is not compatible with several
> Samba modes and should not be done automatically.
Do we have a Fedora specific Samba installation and administration
guide elsewhere? I had just had a short look around and couldn’t find
anything. If we would have a recommended way, couldn’t we work along
that path?
We do not have Fedora-specific guides nor I think we should have any. We
have three major uses for Samba in Fedora:
- Samba as a domain member for Active Directory-like environment
- Samba as an Active Directory domain controller
- Samba as a standalone file server
For all these cases we have documentation elsewhere:
- on
wiki.samba.org, for majority of Samba use cases
- RHEL documentation for both Samba and FreeIPA uses
Fedora does not differ much from anything else in all these cases except
that we are traditionally a forefront of Samba AD DC using MIT Kerberos
build. However, this is only a feature set difference and not actual
configuration after you have deployed Samba AD. And with Fedora 37 we
hope to get this feature set gap reduced completely.
Think of the documentation for Samba and FreeIPA as distribution-neutral
similar to how systemd documentation is distribution neutral. Spending
time to create Fedora-specific guides is counterproductive and disturbs
activities of upstream projects which already are busy with more stuff
they could cover realistically with existing resources.
In past, we had FreeIPA chapters in Fedora 18 or so. These proved to be
quite problematic: they are outdated and irrelevant content-wise but
they keep appearing in search engines' results because Fedora
documentation content has good SEO ratings. It is impossible to remove
them, unfortunately, and we had to deal with a lot of users following
those outdated recipes and literally breaking their deployments.
And we don’t need to do it automatically. We could ask for permission
beforehand.
I don't think you are realising what you are asking for here. There
could be no interactive permission ask anywhere other than in Cockpit
app itself. RPM installation is non-interactive and there are no other
means to add interactivity into any setup.
> Even if user has
> installed a cockpit plugin, it does not mean that configuration has to
> be changed.
>
> If anything, this has to be driven through the Cockpit app's page with
> an additional wizard there.
Developing an additional wizard might be a task for a specialist in
Cockpit. What are possible alternatives to improve the current
situation in this regard?
There is no alternative for interactive setup. Either you have it when
Cockpit app is provided or you don't because there is no other place
where you could ask for this permission otherwise.
I would suggest those who want to improve this Samba Cockpit app is to
focus your effort in upstream and either contribute this helper to the
app upstream or explain to existing developers why it is important to
add it. The original use for them was to set it up on a specialized
distribution where they control all configuration files themselves, so
for them it was not really needed. Making this feature upstream would
also help in future as you wouldn't need to maintain a downstream patch.
--
/ Alexander Bokovoy