RedHat/SaMBa package distribution hassles.

Max TenEyck Woodbury mtew at
Fri Feb 22 12:58:05 GMT 2002

Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 12:08:32PM +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 04:12:09PM -0500, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
>>> OK, then call it something else. By mentioning a Red Hat distribution
>>> explicitly, the implication is that it meshes with that distribution
>>> easily.
>> He's got a point there...
>> What about replacing references to packaging/RedHat/ with packaging/RPM
>> instead? That way it's "just an rpm" instead of a Redhat one...
> > [BTW I prefer the single RPM model myself ;-)]
> That's fine for SRPMS, but a binary RPM has binary dependencies -- the
> ones marked as 'RedHat' have been built and tested against RedHat
> systems specifically.
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer


Let's try:

samba.combo-2.2.3a   The whole enchilada (or samba-complete)

samba-2.2.3a         Just the server (requires samba-common)
samba-client-2.2.3a  Just the client (requires samba-common)
samba-common-2.2.3a  Stuff common to both client and server
samba-swat-2.2.3a    Just SWAT (requires samba server)


More information about the samba-technical mailing list