[SSSD-users] Slow convergence between sssd and windows 2008 r2 ad server

Jakub Hrozek jhrozek at redhat.com
Wed May 7 09:21:56 UTC 2014

On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:43:47AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (07/05/14 10:37), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 09:50:39AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> >> On (07/05/14 09:29), Paul Liljenberg wrote:
> >> >hm in the last working setup i used 1.11 branch with the ad provider. To be
> >> >sure successful signon works it would be nice to have some reference config
> >> >that we know works with that branch. (
> >> >https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/Configuring_sssd_with_ad_server) Ive
> >> >only seen this for the ad provider. Do we need samba-dev to build the
> >> >adprovider for 1.9 branch aswell?
> >> 
> >> The 1.9 branch has ad provider, but there isn't strict dependency on samba-dev.
> >> Of course, there are not all features from 1.11 branch.
> >> 
> >> I could not find in source code why samba is optional in 1.9 branch.
> >> Someone else should explain this.
> >> 
> >> LS
> >
> >According to a bit of git digging, the unconditional samba4-libs
> >dependency was added when site discovery support was implemented.
> >
> >I'm not sure if you're talking about a proper Debian/Ubuntu backport or
> >some kind of PPA, but wouldn't it be easiest for a PPA to not package
> >the AD back end at all and only package the LDAP provider? The current
> >1.8 users are using LDAP only anyway..
> If you want to pacakge 1.11 branch on debian stable you will need to build it.
> If you want to build 1.11 branch on debian stable you will need to install
> samba4 develompment header files.  samba-dev is not available on debian
> stable.

Right, I was thinking of having a build-time only samba4 package as
well..but if that's not an option, then I guess you'd have to patch the
Makefile to not build the sssd-ad provider at all..

More information about the sssd-users mailing list