Please try to upgrade an alpha10 when enforcing new rules in samdb

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 10:30 +0400, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> On 15/08/2010 05:00, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 00:04 +0400, Matthieu Patou wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Is this kind of patch ok for you ?
> >>
> >> Should I wait until MDW fix the two pb that I noted or should I push it
> >> now ?
> > We can't add tests that fail, so you will need to work with mdw to sort
> > out the issues (or at least mark it as knownfail for now).  In any case,
> > I don't see any patch attached, so I can't really comment.
> >
> Sorry I forget to paste this URL:
> http://gitweb.samba.org/?p=mat/samba.git;a=commit;h=b201a6c2fdbfd05440f55d090ec96cc1a5c1fb7f

This looks fine.  

We should make it 'pass' if the old provision tarball is not present, so
we can exclude it from the tarballs we distribute.  Also perhaps we
should bzip2 it?

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20100815/0858ec7d/attachment.pgp>