Outdated packaging in packaging/Debian
andrew at id10ts.net
Sat Jun 13 10:29:27 GMT 2009
Timur I. Bakeyev wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:29:31PM +0200, Bj?rn Jacke wrote:
>> On 2009-06-12 at 01:33 +0200 Jelmer Vernooij sent off:
>>> Would anybody object to removing the contents of this directory and
>>> instead putting in a README file that points to the svn.debian.org and
>>> the SerNet Debian packages?
Yes - see below.
>> I'd actually also like to propose remove the packaging files for Red Hat and
>> replace them with a README pointing to distributors' packages.
No - see below...
> I'd go farther and remove all the packaging staff and replace it with one
> README, pointing, where appropriate packages for different systems can be
> found. Like in FreeBSD ports collection :)
Please do not take this the wrong way, but Samba is far too dynamic to
allow downstream sources to be the ultimate authority WRT packaging. I
*do* believe the downstream distributions possess their own right to
apply patches against the official release tarballs WRT their needs as
far as init scripts, configuration options, local (not accepted
upstream) patches, FHS (or non-FHS) compliance, etc.
I currently run my development system on a Fedora 9 (x86_64) system that
is maintained with all current updates. A recent change to the
LIBNETAPI torture tests required me to upgrade my RPM-based installation
to the latest (custom RPM build) Samba release in order to provide the
current libnetapi.so DSO.
If the goal is to prevent Samba team members from being responsible for
the Samba packaging for a given named distribution, please provide links
within the proposed README to the Samba wiki so that packaging
contributions can be made by all.
Allowing downstream packagers to build their own distributions of Samba
packages is the nature of the FOSS community. However, not providing
packaging resources to those who wish to "roll their own" packages from
any given Samba snapshot seems to me to be telling those who are
following Samba development that they're on their own - not that there's
a community behind them.
P.S. - I recently attempted to generate and build a Fedora 9 NTP RPM
package based off of the current (Fedora rawhide) NTP source RPM, to
provide the signed NTP responses required by MS ADS domain client
machines. I gave up on my efforts because the delta of the number of
local (Fedora RPM) patches against the stable NTP branch vs. the most
recent NTP development tarball was too large.
More information about the samba-technical