[linux-cifs-client] First alpha of new cifs-utils package

Jeff Layton jlayton at samba.org
Fri Feb 26 07:52:13 MST 2010

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:19:59 +0100
Christian PERRIER <bubulle at debian.org> wrote:

> Quoting Jeff Layton (jlayton at samba.org):
> > ...and went ahead and cut a first release and dropped it into the
> > directory there. I've decided to change the version numbering scheme a
> > bit and plan to make the first release "4.0". Since we're splitting off
> > from samba3, starting the versions with a higher number than 3.x seems
> > like it'll make it easier for people packaging samba. That should help
> > ensure the new packages supercede any packages based on the samba 3.x
> > releases. I'm flexible on this however, so if anyone thinks this'll be
> > a problem, let me know.
> That could be much appreciated if you go this way.
> Speaking with the Debian maintainer had (or, say, packaging team
> representative), I think we will use this opportunity to get rid of
> the "smbfs" binary package name, which we still carry for historical
> reasons (and lazyness) even though we don't provide mount.smbfs
> anymore.
> The plan for Debian (and Ubuntu as side effect) could be more or less
> the following:
> - create a "cifs-utils" or "cifsprogs" package based on your first
> published release (using "cifsprogs" would make things parallel to
> packages such as "e2fsprogs", "xfsprogs", "ntfsprogs"...to name only
> those I have on my own machine). Make it "Provides: smbfs" so that
> packages depending on "smbfs" are not broken.
> - In samba, turn smbfs into a transition package (thus empty) that
> only "Depends: cifsprogs" (thus allowing smooth transition to users
> that have smbfs installed)
> - Report bugs to packages depending on smbfs to have their
> dependencies changed (If some do. I haven't checked this)
> - Drop the transition package when no more package depends on smbfs
> and after a release cycle.
> (this is to be polished with Steve who's much more clever with
> handling such things than me).
> So, the versioning is not mandatory for us as we will switch the
> namespace...but it could make life easier for other distros if they
> already changed the package name.

Ok. It should make things easier for Fedora since we went ahead and
split off the same tools from samba into a separate cifs-utils package
recently. We could work around it, but version numbers are arbitrary
things so we might as well go the easy route.

> Maybe think about the package naming if you think that having things
> aligned with other FS utilities packages is good or not. Though, I
> haven't verified that "e2fsprogs" or "xfsprogs" are named that way by
> their respective upstream.

Ahh, the joys of differences between distros...

I named it "cifs-utils" to align its naming with "nfs-utils". I'd
probably prefer to keep the name for that reason unless there is great
hue and cry for me to change it. Does debian ship an nfsprogs package
or do they call it nfs-utils?

Jeff Layton <jlayton at samba.org>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list