CentOS 4 Samba - Excel 2002/2003 bug

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

There is a nasty bug on samba, up to 3.0.10, which causes
Excel to
incorrectly think a file was changes by someone else.

This is a know issue, fixed on samba 3.0.11 (stock). A patch
was
also applied to samba on RHEL 3, but was NOT on RHEL 4.

This patch (samba-3.0.9-excel.patch) will apply cleanly on
samba-3.0.10-1.4E.9,
and build without a glinch.

This issue is NOT solves by http://support
.microsoft.com/kb/324491
(has it on a machine with Office SP3 installed).

Maybe we can get a centosplus version of samba with this
patch applied ?

[]s

- -- 
Rodrigo Barbosa
"Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur"
"Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted
(Wyld Stallyns)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFz7+rpdyWzQ5b5ckRAnX9AKCVm1x5fxyTdrjFa8kLzHLCft7tvACf
fTJa
kpT1XyvlDjOdMoI12djA/h0=
=6b5J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> There is a nasty bug on samba, up to 3.0.10, which
causes Excel to
> incorrectly think a file was changes by someone else.
>
> This is a know issue, fixed on samba 3.0.11 (stock). A
patch was
> also applied to samba on RHEL 3, but was NOT on RHEL
4.

Do you ahve any references to RedHat bugzilla?
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:25:11PM -0500, Charlie Brady
wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
> >There is a nasty bug on samba, up to 3.0.10, which
causes Excel to
> >incorrectly think a file was changes by someone
else.
> >
> >This is a know issue, fixed on samba 3.0.11
(stock). A patch was
> >also applied to samba on RHEL 3, but was NOT on
RHEL 4.
> 
> Do you ahve any references to RedHat bugzilla?

Yes, #167920. Unfortunatelly, it is a restricted bug.

This bug is listed on the RHEL 3 samba changelog:

- - Include the (updated for 3.0.9) -excel patch to close
  bz#167920 Samba erroneously changes file date/time when
opened by Excel

Interesting enough, this entry is from Sep 2005. 

There is an interesting followup (plot twist?) on:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
171897

Where we read:

This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion in a Red
Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release.  Product
Management has requested
further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for
potential
inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for
currently deployed
products.  This request is not yet committed for inclusion
in an Update
release.

That was on 2006-08-18. The bug is still open.

[]s

- -- 
Rodrigo Barbosa
"Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur"
"Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted
(Wyld Stallyns)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFz+T7pdyWzQ5b5ckRAoFgAJ9DA7BMw8fzmD1enCKJFkE1nhBYjACf
bATB
mdXJif5sTR0Nc3qSzJEcTgM=
=MK9e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Hello Folks,

FWI (and slightly OT), we have had no end of troubles with
the standard
3.0.10-EL4 Samba RPMs, specially regarding MS SMS
installations. We have
fixed all of them just by upgrading to Samba 3.0.23d,
rebuilt (with a
simple "rpmbuild --rebuild") from the SRPM
available at
	http://ftp.sernet.de/pub/samba/src/samba3-3.0.23d-30
.src.rpm

We have not yet tried the new 3.0.24 version, but we assume
it would
work just as well.

If you use LDAP authentication, there's a change in the
Samba schema
regarding indexing, mostly harmless but you will have to
rebuild the
LDAP indexes using slapindex (it's on the Release Notes).

If the upstream vendor used more up-to-date versions of some
packages
(3.0.10 is more than 2 years obsolete, for example) I think
there would
be much less crying and gnashing of teeth, but them maybe it
would be
much less fun too 

Best Regards,
-- 
   Durval Menezes (durval AT tmp DOT com DOT br, http://www.tmp.com.br/)
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel