On (04/12/13 16:42), steve wrote:
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 15:13 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 09:24:58AM +0000, Greg.Lehmann(a)csiro.au wrote:
> > Tell you what: You get RHEL to include it and I'll push SUSE about SLES. I
> > mean 6.5 just came out and they did not increase the version by even a minor
> > step over 6.4!
>
> Version numbers mean nothing in the enterprise world. To be precise,
> what we have on RHEL6.5 is called sssd-1.9.2-129.el6 but in reality it's
> upstream 1.9.6, just with patches applied on top of 1.9.2 tarball
> instead of consuming the whole thing.
>
> The way I patch distribution packages is usually one bump of the release
> number (that's 129 now) per fix, one fix may contain multiple patches.
> So the 6.5 packages addressed 129 issues on top of 1.9.2
OK, so we can't use version numbers. But I can if I take the tarball
from the sssd site?
In an attempt to avoid version numbers, the fact remains that no distro
ships with the sssd which has a predictable ad backend. Something what I
call v1.10. With 1.11.x being the one to have. Not just for ad but
because it doesn't have all those niggly little problems like tose which
the OP describes.
It need't be problem in sssd itself. It can be problem of
packaging.
samba is an optional dependency in the 1.9 branch.
And opensuse 1.9.5 is not build with samba.
http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/openSUSE:/12.3:/Update/standard...
On the other hand, sssd 1.9 is build with samba on RHEL/Centos 6.5.
BuildRequires: samba4-devel >= samba4-4.0.0-44
http://vault.centos.org/6.5/os/Source/SPackages/sssd-1.9.2-129.el6.src.rpm
I din't try to reproduce your problem, but it may be related, because
samba is required dependency since sssd 1.10.
LS