Is there a reason to have source4 in 3.4 releases?
abartlet at samba.org
Thu Aug 20 01:54:04 MDT 2009
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 09:35 +0200, Karolin Seeger wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 03:58:55PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > This is what worries me. We are about to make a Samba 3.4.1 release,
> > but the while the Samba3 and common code in that directory is a solid
> > production release, the Samba4 code is just what happened to be in the
> > tree at the time it was branched.
> > That's why I would like it removed from the Samba3 tarball.
> I think removing the samba4 sources is not possible, because it was
> explicitly announced in the release notes:
> General Changes
> On the way towards a standalone Samba AD domain controller, Samba3 and
> branches can be built as "merged" build. That's why Samba3 and Samba4
> are included in the tarball. The merged build is possible in Samba 3.4.0,
> disabled by default. To learn more about the merged build,
> please see http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Franky.
I'm sorry that I didn't pay the attention to the Samba 3.4 release
process that I should have. We should not have announced the merged
build, nor AD DC features for Samba 3.4. Instead, that note should
simply have clarified that our development process has required that
source be renamed to source3 from this point.
> According to this one, there is no "source" directory included in the
> tarball at
> all. Samba3 sources are located in "source3", Samba4 sources are located
> "source4". The libraries have been moved to the toplevel directory.
> To build plain Samba3, please change to "source3" and start the build as
> To build Samba4 as well, please use the "--enable-merged-build" configure
> As 3.4.1 is a Samba3 release and the Standalone AD controller is not in a
> stable state, I think it's no problem to ship an outdated Samba4 version
> in that particular Samba 3 release series. Of course, I do understand your
> point of view.
> Is there a chance to sync the current Samba4 sources to the v3-4-test
> branch? Or would that break something?
No: the only way to do that would be to update the common code, and that
could/would break Samba3.
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the samba-technical