[csw-users] Samba 3.2.0 and 3.0.31 ?

[Dennis Clarke]

<snippage>
>
> As an example, even samba deliver split up packages for these OSes (all
> happen to be linux-based though):
>
> http://us1.samba.org/samba/ftp/Binary_Packages/Fedora/RPMS/i386/core/7/3.0.26/
> http://us1.samba.org/samba/ftp/Binary_Packages/Debian/samba/3/
> http://us1.samba.org/samba/ftp/Binary_Packages/SuSE/3.0/11.0/i386/
>
> For these it doesn't:
> http://us1.samba.org/samba/ftp/Binary_Packages/hp/
> http://us1.samba.org/samba/ftp/Binary_Packages/AIX/
> http://us1.samba.org/samba/ftp/Binary_Packages/solaris/sparc/
> http://us1.samba.org/samba/ftp/Binary_Packages/vms/
>
> Do note that they don't even supply binaries for x86.

sad

okay .. good enough for me .. let's fix that situation and if you can
lend a hand then I can get this stuff into svn.

>> yeah .. that bugs me but .. it isn't my package. The Samba people
>> define what samba is and not me. The user may want something different
>> and it may have made sense in 1998 but I just have a hard time
>> wrapping my head around the split up.
>
> We probably won't agree on this :) Just so you remember, I'm willing to
> help here.

I know when I'm wrong. It happens daily and I'm okay with being
"wrong". Certainly if it allows me to do something that is beneficial.

>> What do you mean by "quality" and what do you mean by "long term"?
>
> For example if I where to update some dependency that "samba" depends I
> would have a harder time to know how to test it if I knew that it only
> affects the server-side, client-side or samba.

It will take some time to map out all the itty bitty bits into those
eight packages and then to see if it can all be built via the GAR
system with repeatability and ease.

non-sequiter : I'd like to get GCC 4.2.4 built also, see  :
                http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-06/msg00181.html


Dennis