This repository has been archived by the owner. It is now read-only.

Samba developers no longer supporting OS X #17820

Closed
mistydemeo opened this Issue Feb 13, 2013 · 24 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@mistydemeo
Contributor

mistydemeo commented Feb 13, 2013

It looks like the Samba developers are no longer willing to support OS X at all: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9659

The developer in that bug's claiming that the fork(2) syscall does not work reliably on OS X, and closed an unrelated OS X build failure as WONTFIX as a result.

@jacknagel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@jacknagel

jacknagel Feb 13, 2013

Contributor

lol. just lol.

we should ping people who have been involved in samba issues here and get them to complain upstream.

Contributor

jacknagel commented Feb 13, 2013

lol. just lol.

we should ping people who have been involved in samba issues here and get them to complain upstream.

@mistydemeo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@mistydemeo

mistydemeo Feb 13, 2013

Contributor

Yeah, pretty much.

I hope that complaining upstream would help, but in the mailing list thread about this from last year someone was pointing out that he was wrong and it didn't have any appreciable effect.

Contributor

mistydemeo commented Feb 13, 2013

Yeah, pretty much.

I hope that complaining upstream would help, but in the mailing list thread about this from last year someone was pointing out that he was wrong and it didn't have any appreciable effect.

@MikeMcQuaid

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@MikeMcQuaid

MikeMcQuaid Feb 13, 2013

Owner

Thought this would happen. We should definitely remove from core unless this is resolved.

Owner

MikeMcQuaid commented Feb 13, 2013

Thought this would happen. We should definitely remove from core unless this is resolved.

@samueljohn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@samueljohn

samueljohn Feb 13, 2013

Contributor

Yeah, a Homebrew/shame tap.

Contributor

samueljohn commented Feb 13, 2013

Yeah, a Homebrew/shame tap.

@cooljeanius

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@cooljeanius

cooljeanius Feb 14, 2013

we should ping people who have been involved in samba issues here and get them to complain upstream.

OK, I'll do that: hey @urdh @latristesse @thebodzio @BrazilianJoe @bpaf @MindTooth @vertis @2bits @ylluminate @82times y'all should come complain upstream.

we should ping people who have been involved in samba issues here and get them to complain upstream.

OK, I'll do that: hey @urdh @latristesse @thebodzio @BrazilianJoe @bpaf @MindTooth @vertis @2bits @ylluminate @82times y'all should come complain upstream.

@cooljeanius

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@cooljeanius

cooljeanius Feb 14, 2013

Aw darn it looks like there's a limit to the number of "@" mentions you can include in a single comment... let me move some of those to this one: hey @lasombra @philippelatulippe @eduo @maddox @asparagui you guys should come complain upstream, too.

Aw darn it looks like there's a limit to the number of "@" mentions you can include in a single comment... let me move some of those to this one: hey @lasombra @philippelatulippe @eduo @maddox @asparagui you guys should come complain upstream, too.

@Sharpie

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@Sharpie

Sharpie Feb 14, 2013

Contributor

Yeah, a Homebrew/shame tap.

Homebrew.new('pillory') unless upstream.regains_sanity?
Contributor

Sharpie commented Feb 14, 2013

Yeah, a Homebrew/shame tap.

Homebrew.new('pillory') unless upstream.regains_sanity?
@philippelatulippe

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@philippelatulippe

philippelatulippe Feb 14, 2013

Contributor

This just seems like bizarre alarmism? Nothing has actually changed, as mentioned at the end of that mailing list thread:

The behaviour (and policy) [of fork] has been the same forever. The only thing new here is the documentation.

Someone could submit a patch to the real problem in samba bug #9659 as a new bug and wait for another developer to handle it. If the same developer comes about and closes the bug as wontfix, then we bring it up with the other devs.

Contributor

philippelatulippe commented Feb 14, 2013

This just seems like bizarre alarmism? Nothing has actually changed, as mentioned at the end of that mailing list thread:

The behaviour (and policy) [of fork] has been the same forever. The only thing new here is the documentation.

Someone could submit a patch to the real problem in samba bug #9659 as a new bug and wait for another developer to handle it. If the same developer comes about and closes the bug as wontfix, then we bring it up with the other devs.

@mistydemeo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@mistydemeo

mistydemeo Feb 14, 2013

Contributor

@philippelatulippe

A core samba developer closing an unrelated Mac bug as WONTFIX because OS X is no longer supported does seem to indicate policy. Rather than play whack-a-mole with bug reports, at this point the best thing to do would be to write to the mailing list asking directly if samba is supported on OS X or not. I can do that, or users of samba can.

Meanwhile, although the cause of the specific issue in that bug was identified and I've been able to work around it by enabling warnings in the formula, samba 4.0.0+ still will not build for me. We should revert to 3.6.8 in the meanwhile.

Contributor

mistydemeo commented Feb 14, 2013

@philippelatulippe

A core samba developer closing an unrelated Mac bug as WONTFIX because OS X is no longer supported does seem to indicate policy. Rather than play whack-a-mole with bug reports, at this point the best thing to do would be to write to the mailing list asking directly if samba is supported on OS X or not. I can do that, or users of samba can.

Meanwhile, although the cause of the specific issue in that bug was identified and I've been able to work around it by enabling warnings in the formula, samba 4.0.0+ still will not build for me. We should revert to 3.6.8 in the meanwhile.

mistydemeo added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 15, 2013

samba: revert to 3.6.8
samba 4.0.0+ doesn't reliably compile on Snow Leopard. In
addition, the autoconf build used by our 4.0.0 formula only
installs a subset of samba's tools. (See the readme for details.)
See #17820.

Once these issues are resolved, we can upgrade to 4.0.3.

This reverts commit 2229c7d.
@mistydemeo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@mistydemeo

mistydemeo Feb 15, 2013

Contributor

I've reverted to 3.6.8 while we sort this out. The autoconf build we were using for samba 4.0.0 only installs a subset of samba's tools, and the waf build (which is now intended as the primary buildsystem) is presently broken on OS X because it generates bad installnames.

The issue for the waf buildsystem problem: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9665

Contributor

mistydemeo commented Feb 15, 2013

I've reverted to 3.6.8 while we sort this out. The autoconf build we were using for samba 4.0.0 only installs a subset of samba's tools, and the waf build (which is now intended as the primary buildsystem) is presently broken on OS X because it generates bad installnames.

The issue for the waf buildsystem problem: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9665

@eduo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@eduo

eduo Feb 23, 2013

What's a shame is how clear the bias agains OS X is present in the Samba group. This bit about Darwin has existed since forever and has just recently been documented as a specific CAVEAT. This caveat, in reality, is a recommended guideline that Apple simply decided to not try and workaround but, in essence, a caveat that shouldn't affect Samba. The caveat has been documented since Lion, too.

The discussion in the Samba list then goes off-topic in asinine discussions about whether this makes OS X a true Unix (and not, you know, the UNIX certification). The implication, none too subtle, is that Linux is more of a Unix than OS X (which provides all the necessary moral high-ground to justify actions that are essentially retaliation against Apple for shunning Samba in Lion, something the Samba group has never really been able to put behind).

This also essentially means the bug in Samba about having users with more than 16 groups will never be addressed.

eduo commented Feb 23, 2013

What's a shame is how clear the bias agains OS X is present in the Samba group. This bit about Darwin has existed since forever and has just recently been documented as a specific CAVEAT. This caveat, in reality, is a recommended guideline that Apple simply decided to not try and workaround but, in essence, a caveat that shouldn't affect Samba. The caveat has been documented since Lion, too.

The discussion in the Samba list then goes off-topic in asinine discussions about whether this makes OS X a true Unix (and not, you know, the UNIX certification). The implication, none too subtle, is that Linux is more of a Unix than OS X (which provides all the necessary moral high-ground to justify actions that are essentially retaliation against Apple for shunning Samba in Lion, something the Samba group has never really been able to put behind).

This also essentially means the bug in Samba about having users with more than 16 groups will never be addressed.

@tkrajacic

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@tkrajacic

tkrajacic Jul 19, 2013

Is there any update on this issue? I just updated my formula to 4.0.7 and it worked without a problem.
I did it to prevent ruby-net-smb to segfault (which it does with the current samba in homebrew) and with 4.0.7 it works flawlessly.
Why don't we update to 4.0.7 again? As the current version is obviously troubled in some way (assuming, since upgrading samba solved the segfault in the ruby gem)

I am using

    http://www.samba.org/samba/ftp/stable/samba-4.0.7.tar.gz
    a40a57049cd34ee8720f864063b946e38ffa8d3e

Is there any update on this issue? I just updated my formula to 4.0.7 and it worked without a problem.
I did it to prevent ruby-net-smb to segfault (which it does with the current samba in homebrew) and with 4.0.7 it works flawlessly.
Why don't we update to 4.0.7 again? As the current version is obviously troubled in some way (assuming, since upgrading samba solved the segfault in the ruby gem)

I am using

    http://www.samba.org/samba/ftp/stable/samba-4.0.7.tar.gz
    a40a57049cd34ee8720f864063b946e38ffa8d3e
@mistydemeo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@mistydemeo

mistydemeo Jul 19, 2013

Contributor

Nothing has changed. Samba 4.x has officially switched from autotools to a waf buildscript. Using autotools only builds you a small subset of samba, so that's really a no-go. The waf buildsystem continues to be broken.

Contributor

mistydemeo commented Jul 19, 2013

Nothing has changed. Samba 4.x has officially switched from autotools to a waf buildscript. Using autotools only builds you a small subset of samba, so that's really a no-go. The waf buildsystem continues to be broken.

@adamv

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@adamv

adamv Nov 2, 2013

Contributor

MacPorts has gotten some 3.6.x updates in the mean time: https://trac.macports.org/log/trunk/dports/net/samba3/Portfile

Should we attempt to pull any of that, or should we redact this software?

Contributor

adamv commented Nov 2, 2013

MacPorts has gotten some 3.6.x updates in the mean time: https://trac.macports.org/log/trunk/dports/net/samba3/Portfile

Should we attempt to pull any of that, or should we redact this software?

@eduo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@eduo

eduo Nov 2, 2013

It makes no difference. These notes relate to 4 and the situation there hasn't changed.

Macports has kept updating their old version of samba 3 to less old versions is samba 3. I believe homebrew already supports the newer versions of the 3.x branch.

eduo commented Nov 2, 2013

It makes no difference. These notes relate to 4 and the situation there hasn't changed.

Macports has kept updating their old version of samba 3 to less old versions is samba 3. I believe homebrew already supports the newer versions of the 3.x branch.

@adamv

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@adamv

adamv Nov 5, 2013

Contributor

It makes no difference.

Should we drop Samba 3 from core entirely then?

Contributor

adamv commented Nov 5, 2013

It makes no difference.

Should we drop Samba 3 from core entirely then?

@MikeMcQuaid

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@MikeMcQuaid

MikeMcQuaid Nov 5, 2013

Owner

Hmm, maybe. At least move it to a tap I guess. homebrew-upstreamhatesyou

Owner

MikeMcQuaid commented Nov 5, 2013

Hmm, maybe. At least move it to a tap I guess. homebrew-upstreamhatesyou

@adamv

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@adamv

adamv Nov 14, 2013

Contributor

MacPorts does some stuff to get a newer Samba3 working, including disabling Kerberos: https://trac.macports.org/browser/trunk/dports/net/samba3/Portfile?order=name

Tried going to x.x.20, but don't really want to backport all of what MacPorts is doing.

3.x.x is currently non-building on modern OS X versions out of Homebrew.

I'm not very motivated to try fixing it, but it seems doable.

Contributor

adamv commented Nov 14, 2013

MacPorts does some stuff to get a newer Samba3 working, including disabling Kerberos: https://trac.macports.org/browser/trunk/dports/net/samba3/Portfile?order=name

Tried going to x.x.20, but don't really want to backport all of what MacPorts is doing.

3.x.x is currently non-building on modern OS X versions out of Homebrew.

I'm not very motivated to try fixing it, but it seems doable.

@mistydemeo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@mistydemeo

mistydemeo Nov 14, 2013

Contributor

I couldn't convince it not to use kerberos even with --without-krb5 - not sure why it didn't work.

Contributor

mistydemeo commented Nov 14, 2013

I couldn't convince it not to use kerberos even with --without-krb5 - not sure why it didn't work.

@adamv

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@adamv

adamv Nov 15, 2013

Contributor

Figured it out, I had to also disable ldap.

Contributor

adamv commented Nov 15, 2013

Figured it out, I had to also disable ldap.

@adamv

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@adamv

adamv Nov 17, 2013

Contributor

Closing this issue in the interest of mercilessly reducing the open issue count.

We will definitely review a PR that tries to get Samba 4 working for OS X users.

Contributor

adamv commented Nov 17, 2013

Closing this issue in the interest of mercilessly reducing the open issue count.

We will definitely review a PR that tries to get Samba 4 working for OS X users.

@adamv adamv closed this Nov 17, 2013

@abartlet

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abartlet

abartlet Nov 29, 2013

I can assure you that this is a misreading of a user-created by due to setting -w in CFLAGS. The fork() issue is serious, but is orthogonal to the bug at hand. We won't actively stop it working on MacOS, the rest is up to Apple.

I can assure you that this is a misreading of a user-created by due to setting -w in CFLAGS. The fork() issue is serious, but is orthogonal to the bug at hand. We won't actively stop it working on MacOS, the rest is up to Apple.

@MikeMcQuaid

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@MikeMcQuaid

MikeMcQuaid Nov 29, 2013

Owner

"The rest is up to Apple" does mean "we aren't going to support OS X (because we think Apple should)". We work around lots of Apple bugs and weirdness in Homebrew; I'd suggest you do the same if you wish to support OS X. If you don't, no problem.

Owner

MikeMcQuaid commented Nov 29, 2013

"The rest is up to Apple" does mean "we aren't going to support OS X (because we think Apple should)". We work around lots of Apple bugs and weirdness in Homebrew; I'd suggest you do the same if you wish to support OS X. If you don't, no problem.

@abartlet

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abartlet

abartlet Nov 29, 2013

On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 00:21 -0800, Mike McQuaid wrote:

"The rest is up to Apple" does mean "we aren't going to support OS X
(because we think Apple should)". We work around lots of Apple bugs
and weirdness in Homebrew; I'd suggest you do the same if you wish to
support OS X. If you don't, no problem.

Patches to have Samba, or components of it, continue to work on MacOS X
are still welcome, but we are very concerned about the situation around
fork(). That part isn't a good sign, but feel free to continue to work
around it, and to help us. We haven't deliberately removed any support,
but were shocked to find such a fundamental call go 'unsupported'.

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba

On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 00:21 -0800, Mike McQuaid wrote:

"The rest is up to Apple" does mean "we aren't going to support OS X
(because we think Apple should)". We work around lots of Apple bugs
and weirdness in Homebrew; I'd suggest you do the same if you wish to
support OS X. If you don't, no problem.

Patches to have Samba, or components of it, continue to work on MacOS X
are still welcome, but we are very concerned about the situation around
fork(). That part isn't a good sign, but feel free to continue to work
around it, and to help us. We haven't deliberately removed any support,
but were shocked to find such a fundamental call go 'unsupported'.

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba

@xu-cheng xu-cheng locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 16, 2016

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.