Summary: | Provide more guidance to new users for initial setup | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Frameworks and Libraries] kdenetwork-filesharing | Reporter: | Daniel <code> |
Component: | general | Assignee: | Unassigned bugs mailing-list <unassigned-bugs> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | kfm-devel, nate, sitter |
Priority: | NOR | Keywords: | usability |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Platform: | Fedora RPMs | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Latest Commit: | Version Fixed In: |
Description
Daniel
2021-10-11 10:41:40 UTC
What does this command have to say: testparm --debuglevel=0 --suppress-prompt --verbose --parameter-name 'usershare path' 2> /dev/nul Hi Harald, It returns `/var/lib/samba/usershares`. That file doesn’t exist, though. No system packages provide it either. There are ten other files in that directory. This blog post documents the changes I need to make to my system: https://opsech.io/posts/2016/Apr/06/sharing-files-with-kde-and-samba.html Enabling the samba service and configuring samba usershare seems like it should be the same across distros, and something kdenetwork-filesharing could detect and advise on. The selinux policy change is probably Fedora-specific, but checking read-permissions and then suggesting to check directory permissions and security policies can be a cross-distro check. Thanks for the info! Seems to me all of this is an issue in Fedora. selinux is purely their choice. Shipping samba with a usershares folder configured that does not actually exist on disk is too. Not enabling services is too. The way I see it installing kdenetwork-fielsharing, the rpm, should either ensure the foundational aspects of samba are in order, or the package as whole should not exist. Most other distros manage to create a directory and setup group ownership correctly, I'm sure fedora can manage too. > Shipping samba with a usershares folder configured that does not actually exist on disk is too That seems like a fixable bug that we can report to them. > Not enabling services is too This seems more reasonable for the distro to not do; a lot of distros are wary about the security implications of having a samba server running even if the user hasn't explicitly created any shares. I think it's reasonable to have Samba installed but to have the service off until the need arises--i.e. by the user creating a share here. Which means this thing should be able to turn the service on when needed. Bug 425202is being fixed, which should effectively fix this too. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 425202 *** |