[Bug 1694334] Re: Offer to include testparm's analysis in bug reports

[Launchpad Bug Tracker]

This bug was fixed in the package samba - 2:4.5.8+dfsg-2ubuntu2

---------------
samba (2:4.5.8+dfsg-2ubuntu2) artful; urgency=medium

  * Add extra DEP8 tests to samba (LP: #1696823):
    - d/t/control: enable the new DEP8 tests
    - d/t/smbclient-anonymous-share-list: list available shares anonymously
    - d/t/smbclient-authenticated-share-list: list available shares using
      an authenticated connection
    - d/t/smbclient-share-access: create a share and download a file from it
    - d/t/cifs-share-access: access a file in a share using cifs
  * Ask the user if we can run testparm against the config file. If yes,
    include its stderr and exit status in the bug report. Otherwise, only
    include the exit status. (LP: #1694334)
  * If systemctl is available, use it to query the status of the smbd
    service before trying to reload it. Otherwise, keep the same check
    as before and reload the service based on the existence of the
    initscript. (LP: #1579597)
  * Remove d/p/fix-1584485.patch as it builds a broken pam_winbind
    module. There is a fixed version of that patch attached to
    #1677329 but it has not been vetted yet, so for now it's best
    to revert (again) so that pam_winbind can be used.
    (LP: #1677329, LP: #1644428)

 -- Andreas Hasenack <andreas at canonical.com>  Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:49:29
-0700

** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu)
       Status: In Progress => Fix Released

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is subscribed to samba in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1694334

Title:
  Offer to include testparm's analysis in bug reports

Status in samba package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released

Bug description:
  It would be helpful to offer to include samba's testparm(1) analysis
  of the smb.conf config file in samba bug reports.

  If the user agrees to attach smb.conf, then it's not really needed
  (bug triagers can run it themselves), but in the case of a refusal,
  having testparm run a quick sanity check on that file and include its
  report in the bug would save time.

  I have a test branch that implements the following workflow:
  - if the user refuses to attach smb.conf, ask a followup question about testparm
  - this followup question asks if the user would allow us to run "testparm -s /etc/samba/smb.conf > /dev/null". This will capture testparm's analysis of the config file, show share names, show syntax errors, and give a good or bad result.
  - the user can refuse to run testparm
  - if the user agreed to attach smb.conf in the previous question, then we don't run testparm.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/+bug/1694334/+subscriptions