Samba 3.6 vs 4.0, and packaging.
repenny241155 at gmail.com
Mon Jun 24 05:56:16 MDT 2013
On 24 June 2013 12:22, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
> No, while the file server code in Samba 4.0 is based on the Samba 3.6
> code, it isn't the same thing, it is the current supported evolution of
> that code. Samba 4.1 likewise continues to evolve that code.
Thanks for clarifying that, but I take it that Samba 4.0 can be used much
the same as Samba 3.6
> Samba releases are already supported for 27 months, I don't see any need
> to extend that.
> Packaging Samba is not our responsibility, but members of the team work
> with and for a number of vendors, and the situation is improving -
> Debian will shortly have experimental (and then unstable) packages for
> Samba 4.0, which someone will presumably also backport. SerNet provides
> packages in exchange for a registration, and Fedora included Samba 4.0
> (but not DC) packages ever since Samba 4.0 was released.
I understood that the packages come from the Distro suppliers, but at the
moment none of them seem to work the same as if you compile S4 yourself, if
you get my meaning. From your instances: SerNet seems to want to change all
the binary names to start with sernet, Fedora does not want you to use an
S4 AD, they want you to use IPA ( I prefer my IPA out of a bottle ;-) )
When I said that samba 3.6 might have to be extended, I was doing so with
my tongue in my cheek, but unless the distro's get their finger's out, we
could be in the ludicrous situation that samba 3.6 is discontinued but no
distro supplies a Samba 4 package or packages to replace it
More information about the samba-technical