On 1/2/07, Matthew Geddes <musicalcarrion@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chetan S wrote:
[snip]
> However there is a problem here - how / should the changes be written
> back to smb.conf. If not then how should the conflict be resolved ?
It makes sense (to me) to write it to smb.conf if you're going to write
it somewhere.
The basic problems in writing back being "include" and macros. Writing
back can quickly become a nightmare unless meta data is stored about
smb.conf in a tdb/ldb.
Or removing smb.conf altogether ( i don't see that happening though ).
Or exposing a set of parameters for configuration via rpc with higher
precedence over the smb.conf values.
Which ones make sense or neither of them ?
If you weren't confident about writing changes back to
*the* smb.conf, you could always include a separate smb.conf containing
your remotely modified share(s).
Its not only about modifying user-shares, but going beyond that and
allowing Samba configuration.
The biggest problem is of security which I've been told is not trivial
considering the time it took to get some samba elements secure enough.
regards,
Chetan S
|