[PROPOSAL] Re-bundle (stop producing tarballs for) ldb?
rpenny at samba.org
Sun Apr 14 07:45:28 UTC 2019
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 20:21:04 -0700
Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 10:02:57PM +0100, Rowland Penny via
> samba-technical wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:32:12 -0400
> > Simo <simo at samba.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-04-11 at 09:03 +0100, Rowland Penny via
> > > samba-technical wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:01:29 -0700
> > > > Jeremy Allison via samba-technical
> > > > <samba-technical at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Red Hat is the most popular Linux distro with a large
> > > > > user base and we need to take their engineering
> > > > > needs into account.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think taking a particular distro into account is a good
> > > > idea. I think we should do what is best for Samba and the wider
> > > > community.
> > >
> > > I didn't read Jeremy's phrasing as an exclusive. He just pointed
> > > out that there are needs from down-streams as well. I would
> > > object myself to catering for a specific party exclusively.
> > I understood what he meant, I was just saying that we shouldn't
> > mention any distro by name.
> I understand what you mean also, but sometimes you
> have to call a spade a spade :-). If it's a Red Hat
> need, I don't mind saying "Red Hat need". Same for
> SuSE/Ubuntu/Mint/Debian - even some of our proprietary
> bretheren :-).
I don't mind anybody saying 'X needs this' right up to the point that
they also say 'so we must provide it', even if it is better that we
don't provide it.
> But yeah, you're probably right I shouldn't have
> called out one distro as seeming "more important"
> than others, so if I'm correct in assuming that
> is the real issue, then I apologise (again,
> I thought I'd already apologised but I'm happy
> to do it as many times as needed :-).
No, you seem to have wandered into an argument between myself and
More information about the samba-technical