Both Samba 4.13 & 4.16 are EOL per https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba_Release_Planning#General_information Potential impact: 4.14 had no removed features: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba_4.14_Features_added/changed#NEW_FEATURES/CHANGES 4.15 Removed features: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba_4.15_Features_added/changed#REMOVED_FEATURES 4.16 Removed features: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba_4.16_Features_added/changed#REMOVED_FEATURES Prior bump ticket: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248432 I've never contributed a patch, but I'm happy to submit if all we're just going with 4.16. We probably need to discuss getting a version that still receives security maintenance, but that's definitely a bigger effort.
We have Samba 4.16 at net/samba416.
Also there is a WIP for 4.19 at bug270383. I'll close this ticket for now. Please collaborate with other efforts in those related tickets. Thanks!
I understand we have net/samba416, I’m specifically suggesting we change the Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk. I’m not clear how best to format this ticket so it’s routed to the right place. https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/tree/Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk#n149 I appreciate we want 4.19 from bug270383, but is it worth waiting? Feels like we want users to at least try the port before making it the default. But I don’t know the update standard for defaults.
(In reply to Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten from comment #3) Oh, sorry, I misunderstood this ticket and thought it was asking for upgrading net/samba413 to 4.16. You're welcomed to create a patch to update the ports/Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk file. It would save some time for exp-run, if needed.
(In reply to Li-Wen Hsu from comment #4) I believe that the intent is that the default version of a port functions on the oldest version of a supported FreeBSD. Unfortunately FreeBSD12.4 runs Samba413 but not Samba416. FreeBSD13.0 or later is required for Samba416. Suggest that we defer to December 31, 2023 at the earliest. (ie the expected EOL for FreeBSD 12 series).
Created attachment 247002 [details] Change default samba
Exp-run looks fine (after 12.4 support is removed)
Noted. Then I will await and bump in between removing 12 and next quarterly.
(In reply to Muhammad Moinur Rahman from comment #8) Another note: samba416 fails to build at the moment on FreeBSD current (new llvm)
(In reply to Antoine Brodin from comment #9) A fix similar as this one may be applied: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=8bc0f1e6d3d18811c33a876273d591c04b2a8b44
Thanks for the headsup Antoine.
A commit in branch main references this bug: URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=fabf8b5d116512e2c0339c1a17340370d753e271 commit fabf8b5d116512e2c0339c1a17340370d753e271 Author: Muhammad Moinur Rahman <bofh@FreeBSD.org> AuthorDate: 2023-12-31 01:29:20 +0000 Commit: Muhammad Moinur Rahman <bofh@FreeBSD.org> CommitDate: 2023-12-31 03:51:03 +0000 Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk: Switch SAMBA default to 4.16 PR: 275224 Approved by: portmgr (exp-run) Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
I tried with samba shares physically on zfs, which are nullfs mounted into a jail which runs samba and exports to Windows 11 and Windows 10. I can see the directory contents, but when I try to access a file (e.g. text file), Windows tells me it can not access the file. The samba log contains in the log log.<windows_host_name> the lines ---snip--- [2024/01/01 16:01:16.059649, 0] ../../source3/modules/vfs_zfsacl.c:363(fget_zfsacl) fget_zfsacl: fdescfs filesystem must be mounted with 'nodup' option ---snip--- Inside this jail I have this: ---snip--- # mount -v | grep fdesc fdescfs on /dev/fd (fdescfs, vnodes: count 5 ) fdescfs on /var/run/samba4/fd (fdescfs, vnodes: count 2 ) ---snip--- The second fdescfs (in the samba pid dir) is mounted from the jail-host with the options rw,noatime,nodup. Changing files/0099-s3-modules-zfsacl-fix-get-set-ACL-on-FreeBSD-13.patch to comment out (=workaround) this (2 times) makes it work: ---snip--- +/* if (!fsp->fsp_flags.have_proc_fds) { + DBG_ERR("fdescfs filesystem must be mounted with 'nodup' " + "option \n"); + errno = EBADF; + return -1; + }*/ ---snip--- So the check for have_proc_fds for jails is not correct.
(In reply to Alexander Leidinger from comment #13) Can you please open a different PR and assign it to maintainer? I am closing this for now as this was mainly to track the change of the DEFAULT.
(In reply to Muhammad Moinur Rahman from comment #14) Added to the existing bug 270951