[Samba] Samba 2.2.3 RedHat Intel 6.2 and 7.2 binary packages created

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at pcug.org.au
Wed Feb 6 22:45:19 GMT 2002

Greg Zartman wrote:
> > They are free to package as they wish however, as are
> > we.
> Agreed, but the single package approach can cause problems.  For example,
> I'm running E-smith (now SME) Linux on my server and it HAS to have the
> tree package configuration.  Not that this has been a huge problem to
> date as someone in the development group usually repackages things.
> It seems that creating the single package causes more confusion when
> upgrading than following the Redhat approach (i.e., three packages).
> Folks get what Redhat gives them out of the box and have no real control
> over how Redhat packages things.  When it comes time to upgrade, they
> have to figure out why there are two sets of package configurations
> floating around to accomplish the same thing.

I was thinking about adding an 'obsoletes: samba-common' etc.  line to
the packaging.  If I understand my RPM correctly, that would mean that
rpm -U samba.org.package.rpm would do as expected - removing
samba-common etc on upgrade.

Could sombody please check this out and confirm - in particular what
happens when somebody attempts to 'upgrade' back to a later RedHat?

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                                 abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team  abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College   abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org     http://build.samba.org     http://hawkerc.net

More information about the samba mailing list