[csw-maintainers] Samba 4

Laurent Blume laurent at opencsw.org
Tue Sep 3 13:26:13 CEST 2013

On 03/09/13 12:39, slowfranklin wrote:
> Fast forward 2 years, fast forward 5 years. Versioned packages all
> over the place. Eg possibly CSWsamba, CSWsamba4, CSWsamba5,
> CSWsamba6. *blah*

Yes? So what? I'm genuinely puzzled now. How is that a problem? Personal 
hatred for numbers? :-)
If it's just against your personal taste, well, okay, de gustibus et 
coloribus non disputandum, but it doesn't make it a *bad* technical 
decision: it avoids problems instead of creating them, So, why not?

> We're *forced* to use verioned package names due to the lack of any
> usable catalog other then unstable.

Well, since others do just that, package versioning, it must not be so 

> If it would be an automated process not su much. But I have no
> background in packaging and distribution managment.

come on, how can it ever be automated? Particularly talking about Samba 
or other critical packages. also, I think you don't realize that 
packages can't just go from one repo to the other. In many cases, they 
must be rebuilt to fit a particular repository dependencies (when the 
deps in unstables are not the same as in stable).
That's why Linux distros apply security patches instead of taking direct 
updates from upstream: they ensure that a given package is not going to 
change its soname or something that others depend on.

> I never suggested to *maintain* a stable catalog. I only came up with
> what is already described on the website and which is an automated
> process. But it seems that idea was already killed of for some
> reasons.

Ok, I see. I think the reason is that days only have 24 hours :-)

> You got it. :) Adding another (default disabled) init/SMF manifest
> for the samba daemon is a non issue and easily be done once we have
> the package in good shape.

SMF dependencies need to he handled carefully, though.


More information about the maintainers mailing list