[Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7
simo.sorce at xsec.it
Fri Dec 13 23:16:00 GMT 2002
On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 00:06, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
> > That's fine with development versions, but samba stable is ... well ...
> > stable :-)
> There's (at least) three other things involved here, though:
> * Because upstream (samba developers) say something is stable may not be
> good enough for Debian team, since they have to stand behind it
> * Some of the testing is on the Debian package itself: how well does it
> integrate into Debian, etc.
> * Debian is not one entity, but a group of developers; if the Samba
> maintainer were allowed to shove a new package into stable, that might
> be OK; but other developers would want to do the same thing, and, sooner
> or later, stable would get a showstopping problem.
> I would say that third reason is really important. Stated another way,
> because Debian is very loosely organized, no one person can decide what
> can/cannot go into stable; therefore it is governed by policy, which had
> to govern everyone, and therefore errs on the cautious side.
> Does that make sense? If you don't like this sort of loosely organized
> team, which has political problems, you might like another distribution
> better. With a whole other set of problems. :-)
You got me wrong, I'm perfectly fine with debian, and use it with much
joy. I do know debian only vaguely, just I see that sometimes it is
really very slow, 10 months is really a lot of time without an upgrade.
I'm ok with good scrutiny, but it seem that samba has been forgotten
this time :-)
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce at xsec.it
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20021213/d6bfebf5/attachment.bin
More information about the samba