Name Change for Samba4? [Re: What is blocking a Samba4 Tech Preview?]

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
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>
> > Subject: Re: What is blocking a Samba4 Tech Preview?
> > To: samba-technical at
> > Message-ID: <20051219105558.GA4797 at>
> > 
> > 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

Andrew Bartlett                      
Authentication Developer, Samba Team 
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the samba-technical mailing list