Please try to upgrade an alpha10 when enforcing new rules in samdb
Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer
mdw at samba.org
Sun Aug 15 01:20:29 MDT 2010
Sorry, sorry, ekacnet,
I have overseen the thread. I relaxed the delete checks but didn't relax
the rename checks since I thought that wouldn't be necessary. I will
push a patch which relaxes them too. Hope this is enough!
Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> 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:
>>>> 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:
> 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
More information about the samba-technical