[csw-maintainers] Samba 4

[slowfranklin]

Am 03.09.2013 um 09:24 schrieb Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org>:

> Laurent Blume <laurent at opencsw.org> writes:
> 
>> On 2013-09-02 7:15 PM, slowfranklin wrote:
>>> Well, Samba 4.0 is the current *stable* Samba release series. 
>> 
>> Yup, but 3.6 is still actively maintained (and 3.5 too for security,
>> actually).
>> 
>>> But we can tell people: why are you sticking with 3.x when upgrading
>>> to 4.y is a non issue?
>> 
>> «Because my boss says so», «because my software is only supported for
>> Samba 3», «because we have a recertifying process that takes too long».
>> 
>> Believe me, a major version change is an issue that should not be
>> underestimated just because it *should* work (and I'm not an advocate of
>> just staying on old unmaintained versions, but staying on old,
>> *supported* version does makes sense).
> 
> This is a recurrent argument. If it had prevailed we still provide
> packages for Solaris 8. Fortunately it had not. A sticky argument also:
> look how difficult is to stop providing packages for Solaris 9 which is
> not maintained by its supplier. Lets the enterprises re-certify their
> platforms as they still have more resources than we have. 
> 
> Note that Solaris 10 U11 provides Samba 3.6.8
> 
> As a reminder, our goal is to provide an up to date, i.e. state of the
> art, package set for Solaris 10 and greater. Samba 4.0.9 corresponds to
> this definition.


the debate is not so much if we want a Samba 4 package, but how we name it.

I'd simply like to avoid a version suffix if possible. If that is not possible for valid reason, and in the context of OpenCSWs current state of branches imo Laurent has brought up valid concerns, then lets keep the current design of the Samba 4 package recipe and add a 4 suffix to the packages. There are several other packages that have versioned names too.

I'd prefer to have a unstable catalog that could be used for its purpose and a testing catalog that offered a set of older, stable packages, but afaict testing is far from that.

What happened to the automatic package promotion from unstable to testing that is descibed on the website? Eg <http://wiki.opencsw.org/releases-and-staging#toc20>:

  "Packages from unstable/ that have no bugs filed against them, are promoted to testing/"

If we had something like that we could easily honor Laurent's concerns by going ahead and adding a unversioned Samba 4 package (ie no 4 suffix) and file a bug against it preventing promotion.

-slow