On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 23:10 +0000, Greg.Lehmann(a)csiro.au wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sssd-devel-bounces(a)lists.fedorahosted.org [mailto:sssd-devel-
> bounces(a)lists.fedorahosted.org] On Behalf Of steve
> Sent: Thursday, 5 December 2013 1:43 AM
> To: sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> Subject: Re: [SSSD] problem with AD nested group expansion, maybe?
>
> 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.
> <tongue in...>
> Maybe you should slow down your development to match the snail pace of
> that of sssd adoption by the distros. Or insist everyone switch to
> Fedora.
> </tongue in...>
> Cheers,
> Steve
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sssd-devel mailing list
> sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
HaHaHa. Love it. Thanks for the laugh.
No probs:)
To be clear, are you saying you need at least 1.10 to get predictable behaviour with AD?
Yes. 1.10 and above are very different beasts from the 1.9 series. They
began using the Samba4 libraries and I suppose that that is when real AD
integration took off. The development moves forward at an amazing rate
and the 1.11 series really is rock solid. Try as we may, we cannot break
it.
I just wish that we could move away from having to rely on building
ourselves. I really don't have the time to learn the stringent rules and
regulations needed to submit an rpm or deb. It's gonna be at least a
year before e.g. openSUSE gets anywhere near Samba4, let alone sssd with
AD. OTOH, I also feel I should do my (very small) bit in testing the new
releases.
Cheers,
Steve