Name Change for Samba4? [Re: What is blocking a Samba4 Tech
abartlet at samba.org
Thu Dec 22 03:32:57 GMT 2005
On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 03:28 +0000, Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
> On Monday 19 December 2005 12:06, Steve Langasek wrote on samba-technical:
> > Message: 15
> > Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:55:58 -0800
> > From: Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org>
> > Subject: Re: What is blocking a Samba4 Tech Preview?
> > To: samba-technical at lists.samba.org
> > Message-ID: <20051219105558.GA4797 at tennyson.dodds.net>
> > On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 10:06:55PM +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > > If we can get some of this code out into the hands of users, we might
> > > > get the interest and developers we so desperately need, but doing
> > > > 'nothing' (ie continuing development) isn't going to move us.
> > > Certainly! The Debian packages of Samba4 are a bit more sane now,
> > > after a couple of patches from Steinar Gunderson (Sesse for those on
> > > IRC), so I hope we can get some Samba4 packages in Debians
> > > experimental as well.
> > What is the (eventual) upgrade path from samba3 to samba4 going to look
> > like? I would like to see samba4 packages in experimental at some point,
> > but I'm not really happy with the idea of renamed packages;
> Why? Does your unhappiness have a real cause?
> Speaking for myself (a lowly user only, not capable of reading more
> than comments in the code, not capable of building packages for any
> distro, and thusly not really knowing how much work is involved for
> those who have to actually implement the following suggestions):
> * Please rename the Samba version 4.x into Samba4 1.0 (or into an
> otherwise different one from "Samba")
While I think there are many valid points in this mail, a name other
than Samba is a non-starter (loss of brand), and that Samba4 1.0 is just
going to cause confusion.
> * Don't just give a new name to the package facing the "outside
> world", do also rename all the binaries, important files and
> directories [smbd4, nmbd4, smb4.conf, winbindd4, /etc/samba4/,
> /var/lib/samba4/ (or wherever the various distros put stuff),
> passdb4.tdb, secrets4.tdb, ...e etc.pp.]
Some of this can be achieved with autoconf executable suffix support,
and similar tricks over the entire tree. It is a lot of work, and I
while certainly appreciate the reasons you list.
I much prefer that for parallel installation situations we use a
separate prefix. The use of a 'system' prefix is a packaging matter, as
Samba from source entirely functions with an arbitrary prefix. Changing
the prefix will also not require wholesale changes across the tree.
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20051222/568959db/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical