-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
There is a nasty bug on samba, up to 3.0.10, which causes Excel to incorrectly think a file was changes by someone else.
This is a know issue, fixed on samba 3.0.11 (stock). A patch was also applied to samba on RHEL 3, but was NOT on RHEL 4.
This patch (samba-3.0.9-excel.patch) will apply cleanly on samba-3.0.10-1.4E.9, and build without a glinch.
This issue is NOT solves by http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324491 (has it on a machine with Office SP3 installed).
Maybe we can get a centosplus version of samba with this patch applied ?
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
There is a nasty bug on samba, up to 3.0.10, which causes Excel to incorrectly think a file was changes by someone else.
This is a know issue, fixed on samba 3.0.11 (stock). A patch was also applied to samba on RHEL 3, but was NOT on RHEL 4.
Do you ahve any references to RedHat bugzilla?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:25:11PM -0500, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
There is a nasty bug on samba, up to 3.0.10, which causes Excel to incorrectly think a file was changes by someone else.
This is a know issue, fixed on samba 3.0.11 (stock). A patch was also applied to samba on RHEL 3, but was NOT on RHEL 4.
Do you ahve any references to RedHat bugzilla?
Yes, #167920. Unfortunatelly, it is a restricted bug.
This bug is listed on the RHEL 3 samba changelog:
- - Include the (updated for 3.0.9) -excel patch to close bz#167920 Samba erroneously changes file date/time when opened by Excel
Interesting enough, this entry is from Sep 2005.
There is an interesting followup (plot twist?) on:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171897
Where we read:
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release.
That was on 2006-08-18. The bug is still open.
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Hello Folks,
FWI (and slightly OT), we have had no end of troubles with the standard 3.0.10-EL4 Samba RPMs, specially regarding MS SMS installations. We have fixed all of them just by upgrading to Samba 3.0.23d, rebuilt (with a simple "rpmbuild --rebuild") from the SRPM available at http://ftp.sernet.de/pub/samba/src/samba3-3.0.23d-30.src.rpm
We have not yet tried the new 3.0.24 version, but we assume it would work just as well.
If you use LDAP authentication, there's a change in the Samba schema regarding indexing, mostly harmless but you will have to rebuild the LDAP indexes using slapindex (it's on the Release Notes).
If the upstream vendor used more up-to-date versions of some packages (3.0.10 is more than 2 years obsolete, for example) I think there would be much less crying and gnashing of teeth, but them maybe it would be much less fun too :-)
Best Regards,
Durval Menezes wrote:
Hello Folks,
FWI (and slightly OT), we have had no end of troubles with the standard 3.0.10-EL4 Samba RPMs, specially regarding MS SMS installations. We have fixed all of them just by upgrading to Samba 3.0.23d, rebuilt (with a simple "rpmbuild --rebuild") from the SRPM available at http://ftp.sernet.de/pub/samba/src/samba3-3.0.23d-30.src.rpm
We have not yet tried the new 3.0.24 version, but we assume it would work just as well.
If you use LDAP authentication, there's a change in the Samba schema regarding indexing, mostly harmless but you will have to rebuild the LDAP indexes using slapindex (it's on the Release Notes).
If the upstream vendor used more up-to-date versions of some packages (3.0.10 is more than 2 years obsolete, for example) I think there would be much less crying and gnashing of teeth, but them maybe it would be much less fun too :-)
http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_backport.html
Enterprise distributions like Red hat, Suse, Ubuntu LTS and Debian all take the stance of stability and backport any bug fixes as they are needed.
That said, looking at the changelog for the samba does not show a lot of bug fixes being backported and looking at the list of open bugs I see several that are more than one year old and have been fixed by using the upstream source code instead. One had a patch 10 months after the initial report. The original reporter refused to go back to the distro version because upstream was working fine.
Am I only seeing the shadows or is it really as bad as the 1+ year old bug reports say?
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Mike Fedyk Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 5:54 PM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] CentOS 4 Samba - More bugs (Was: Re: CentOS 4Samba - Excel 2002/2003 bug)
Durval Menezes wrote:
Hello Folks,
FWI (and slightly OT), we have had no end of troubles with
the standard
3.0.10-EL4 Samba RPMs, specially regarding MS SMS
installations. We have
fixed all of them just by upgrading to Samba 3.0.23d,
rebuilt (with a
simple "rpmbuild --rebuild") from the SRPM available at http://ftp.sernet.de/pub/samba/src/samba3-3.0.23d-30.src.rpm
We have not yet tried the new 3.0.24 version, but we assume it would work just as well.
If you use LDAP authentication, there's a change in the Samba schema regarding indexing, mostly harmless but you will have to rebuild the LDAP indexes using slapindex (it's on the Release Notes).
If the upstream vendor used more up-to-date versions of
some packages
(3.0.10 is more than 2 years obsolete, for example) I think
there would
be much less crying and gnashing of teeth, but them maybe
it would be
much less fun too :-)
http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_backport.html
Enterprise distributions like Red hat, Suse, Ubuntu LTS and Debian all take the stance of stability and backport any bug fixes as they are needed.
That said, looking at the changelog for the samba does not show a lot of bug fixes being backported and looking at the list of open bugs I see several that are more than one year old and have been fixed by using the upstream source code instead. One had a patch 10 months after the initial report. The original reporter refused to go back to the distro version because upstream was working fine.
Am I only seeing the shadows or is it really as bad as the 1+ year old bug reports say?
I think the stable distros would be best served if they took applications like, gnome, kde, apache, samba, etc. out of their main repo and put them in a more dynamic repo that gets updated much more frequently.
-Ross
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy or printout thereof.
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Mike Fedyk Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 5:54 PM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] CentOS 4 Samba - More bugs (Was: Re: CentOS 4Samba - Excel 2002/2003 bug)
Durval Menezes wrote:
Hello Folks,
FWI (and slightly OT), we have had no end of troubles with
the standard
3.0.10-EL4 Samba RPMs, specially regarding MS SMS
installations. We have
fixed all of them just by upgrading to Samba 3.0.23d,
rebuilt (with a
simple "rpmbuild --rebuild") from the SRPM available at http://ftp.sernet.de/pub/samba/src/samba3-3.0.23d-30.src.rpm
We have not yet tried the new 3.0.24 version, but we assume it would work just as well.
If you use LDAP authentication, there's a change in the Samba schema regarding indexing, mostly harmless but you will have to rebuild the LDAP indexes using slapindex (it's on the Release Notes).
If the upstream vendor used more up-to-date versions of
some packages
(3.0.10 is more than 2 years obsolete, for example) I think
there would
be much less crying and gnashing of teeth, but them maybe
it would be
much less fun too :-)
http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_backport.html
Enterprise distributions like Red hat, Suse, Ubuntu LTS and Debian all take the stance of stability and backport any bug fixes as they are needed.
That said, looking at the changelog for the samba does not show a lot of bug fixes being backported and looking at the list of open bugs I see several that are more than one year old and have been fixed by using the upstream source code instead. One had a patch 10 months after the initial report. The original reporter refused to go back to the distro version because upstream was working fine.
Am I only seeing the shadows or is it really as bad as the 1+ year old bug reports say?
I think the stable distros would be best served if they took applications like, gnome, kde, apache, samba, etc. out of their main repo and put them in a more dynamic repo that gets updated much more frequently.
One purpose for "Enterprise" distros is to insulate a system from the fast pace of the upstream open source projects and I have no problems with that. In fact, I am happy for that. One such upstream project that sorely needs that right now is asterisk and Fonality with trixbox (centos based) is in a position to do just that.
What I am questioning is whether some of those enterprise distributions are backporting enough of those bug fixes to get the good without all of the possibilities regressions that typically happen with upstream projects. Specifically with the rhel4 samba package, it looks like there need to be more resources put toward bug fixes.
Mike
-
Charlie Brady -
Durval Menezes -
Mike Fedyk -
Rodrigo Barbosa -
Ross S. W. Walker