[csw-maintainers] Samba 4

slowfranklin slowfranklin at opencsw.org
Mon Sep 2 17:47:49 CEST 2013


Am 02.09.2013 um 17:15 schrieb Laurent Blume <laurent at opencsw.org>:

>> I propose the following changes to the Samba 4 recipe:
>> o drop the 4 prefix, Fedora is considering the same [2]:
>>   "As samba4 is a superset of Samba 3 packages in Fedora,
> What does that bit mean, exactly?

Samba 4 includes all Samba 3 binaries, libs and stuff and can be used a drop-in upgrade.

> Are you sure it applies here, ie, will Samba 4 really be a superset of Samba 3 packages?

More or less sure, yes.

> AFAIK, Fedora is a fast-running distro, they might not care as much for stability.

Hey, it's targetting unstable, isn't it? :)
And the Samba 4 series is now already at 4.0.9 iirc with a first 4.1 about to be released soon, so we better catch up. :)

>> we are also considering to discuss
>>   renaming samba4 back to samba. As all existing API and ABI for smbd/nmbd/winbindd and
>>   libsmbclient library will be the same, the switch is not going to be problematic. However,
>>   there is still need to stabilize code through beta and pre-releases before doing that."
>> o add the following packages:
>>     CSWsamba-common             ... common files
>>     CSWsamba-lib                ... Samba libraries
>>     CSWsamba-dc                 ... the new Samba 4 AD DC stuff
>>     CSWsamba-dc-libs            ... libraries for CSWsamba-dc
>>     CSWlibtdb1                  ... present in Samba 3, but missing in 4
>>     CSWlibwbclient0             ... present in Samba 3, but missing in 4
>>     CSWlibsmbclient0            ... present in Samba 3, but missing in 4
>>     CSWlibsmbsharemodes0        ... present in Samba 3, but missing in 4
>>     CSWsamba-nss-system-links   ... present in Samba 3, but missing in 4
>>     CSWsamba-pam-system-links   ... present in Samba 3, but missing in 4
> So there, how do you handle having packages with the same names but different origins?

They have the same origin, not a different one, so it's simply a package upgrade. It's major revision bump, but it _should_ be compatible. So I propose we test it out if it really is.

> How will it impact people willing to stay on Samba 3 for the time being?

Switch to OpenCSW testing or don't upgrade unstable.

>> The expactation is that users of the current Samba 3 package should
>> be able to upgrade to Samba 4 in filesserver/NT DC mode without
>> issues. Anyone who wants to run a AD DC must perform a manual setup
>> as described in the Samba docs. There will be no support for
>> auto-running the new samba AD controller process from init/SMF.
> Does that mean that process is run automatically by the regular SMF once it's configured appropriately?

I said "no support" which was meant to express it's not run by anything.


More information about the maintainers mailing list