IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
version.h changes rather frequently. Since it is included via includes.h,
this means each C file will be a cache miss. This applies to the following
situations:
* When building a new package with a new Samba version
* building in a git branch after calling mkversion.sh
after a new commit (i.e. virtually always)
This patch improves the situation in the following way:
* remove inlude "version.h" from includes.h
* Use samba_version_string() instead of SAMBA_VERSION_STRING
in files that use no other macro from version.h instead of
SAMBA_VERSION_STRING.
* explicitly include "version.h" in those files that use more
macros from "version.h" than just SAMBA_VERSION_STRING.
Michael
net rpc rights grant: Verify if the username can be resolved to a SID and
display a proper error message if it does not. Otherwise users might think
setting privileges worked fine, but in fact it does not.
Karolin
This adds a lua command line interpreter with some sample code how to build
your own data types based on our internal data types.
Not meant as the final word, but as a playground for experiments for people.
Might be removed later when we find this turns out to be too awkward.
ads->config.tried_closest_dc was never set.
metze
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Günther Deschner <gd@samba.org>
(cherry picked from commit dfe5b00db35e1e7c7bb3ba36729fc3f97eb48db3)
Carsten Dumke <carsten@cdumke.de> reported and provided a patch
for v3.0 and v3.2. (See 0a7fb721cdc)
This fixes the same issue in v3.3 and also changes the auto-generated usage
information to give better help about net rap printq info.
Remove the code in memcache that does a TALLOC_FREE on stored pointers. That's a disaster waiting
to happen. If you're storing talloc'ed pointers, you can't know their lifecycle and they should
be deleted when their parent context is deleted, so freeing them at some arbitrary point later
will be a double-free.
Jeremy.
