<div dir="ltr">Is there any status updates on the backport for ssd?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Paul Liljenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:liljenberg.paul@gmail.com" target="_blank">liljenberg.paul@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">If the sssd package is able to be installed via an apt repo in /etc/apt/sources.list we are able to use it. It doesnt matter if its located in ppa as long as debian stable can install from it.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="h5">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Lukas Slebodnik <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lslebodn@redhat.com" target="_blank">lslebodn@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On (07/05/14 10:37), Jakub Hrozek wrote:<br>
<div>>On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 09:50:39AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:<br>
>> On (07/05/14 09:29), Paul Liljenberg wrote:<br>
>> >hm in the last working setup i used 1.11 branch with the ad provider. To be<br>
>> >sure successful signon works it would be nice to have some reference config<br>
>> >that we know works with that branch. (<br>
>> ><a href="https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/Configuring_sssd_with_ad_server" target="_blank">https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/Configuring_sssd_with_ad_server</a>) Ive<br>
>> >only seen this for the ad provider. Do we need samba-dev to build the<br>
>> >adprovider for 1.9 branch aswell?<br>
>><br>
>> The 1.9 branch has ad provider, but there isn't strict dependency on samba-dev.<br>
>> Of course, there are not all features from 1.11 branch.<br>
>><br>
>> I could not find in source code why samba is optional in 1.9 branch.<br>
>> Someone else should explain this.<br>
>><br>
>> LS<br>
><br>
</div>>According to a bit of git digging, the unconditional samba4-libs<br>
>dependency was added when site discovery support was implemented.<br>
><br>
>I'm not sure if you're talking about a proper Debian/Ubuntu backport or<br>
>some kind of PPA, but wouldn't it be easiest for a PPA to not package<br>
>the AD back end at all and only package the LDAP provider? The current<br>
>1.8 users are using LDAP only anyway..<br>
If you want to pacakge 1.11 branch on debian stable you will need to build it.<br>
If you want to build 1.11 branch on debian stable you will need to install<br>
samba4 develompment header files. samba-dev is not available on debian<br>
stable.<br>
<div><div><br>
LS<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
sssd-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:sssd-users@lists.fedorahosted.org" target="_blank">sssd-users@lists.fedorahosted.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-users" target="_blank">https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-users</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div></div></div><div class="">-- <br><div dir="ltr">Vänliga Hälsningar / Best Regards<div>Paul Liljenberg</div></div>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Vänliga Hälsningar / Best Regards<div>Paul Liljenberg</div></div>
</div>