On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 11:30 -0700, Craig White wrote: > On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 10:22 -0700, Dan Thurman wrote: > > Folks, > > > > I had a predefined smb.conf file and it worked fine. > > > > However, when I used swat to diddle with the shares, > > swat seems to have dropped shares from the drop-down > > selections and also changed the path variable to > > /var/spool/samba? > > > > Is this normal? > --- > I don't know - I gave up fooling with swat years ago as way too limited > and like webmin, will mess up a neatly organized smb.conf file. > Good point. I liked swat only because I liked all the fields shown up front like a man page with data entry. Good idea but hard to maintain it I suppose especially when the fields change from version to version or when it breaks badly. Dunno. I will refrain from using it at this time. > I would hope that using swat wouldn't remove shares that are already > properly defined...that would be bad. > It did in my case but perhaps your mileage may vary. > isn't /var/spool/samba where they put tdb files? I think that is the > intent though on RHEL 3, RHEL 4, FC-3, FC-4 they seem to put them > in /var/cache/samba which seemed to be a Red Hat packaging issue and the > topic of some consternation on the samba mail list. I would hope that > Red Hat packaging would have adjusted to /var/spool/samba with the > release of FC-5 by putting the tdb files there instead > of /var/cache/samba. I have no idea what /var/*/samba is for, expecially when the path variable was updated to use it. It blew me away (littlerally :-) I used Samba since it's ineption but fell out of it's use for a long time due to windoes but now I am back into the game. A lot has changed and I am catching up again. I am now fiddling with SELinux control over samba, yet another (but necessary security) administrative layer on top. Things sure get more complicated with every passing year! sigh. > > Craig >
