[Samba] Samba 3.2.0 in Debian "lenny"

[Ryan Novosielski]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Ryan Novosielski (novosirj at umdnj.edu):
> 
>> Seems to me they should have been a lot more reluctant to freeze on a
>> point zero release rather than reluctant at this point. I would be
>> willing to bet that there are a lot of serious problems that would
>> appear with any first release.
> 
> 
> Debian is a collection of thousands of software. We can't wait for
> each of them to release their point releases....So, indeed, the freeze
> has to happen at some time and that time may be infortunate for some
> of the software that are part of the distribution.
> 
> FWIW, the very same deal had to happen with KDE.
> 
>> I know Debian tends to backport patches, but it would seem like this
>> would be a bit of a pain to start from this point.
> 
> Only security patches.

Is that right? Does that mean that if something is completely broken, it
will stay that way for the life of the Debian release?

> I agree that it would be infortunate to have lenny stuck with 3.2.0
> while we all know there will be a few point releases for Samba.

It's not even so much that -- everything will have point releases. The
problem is when we know that the first few will be more important with
many more fixes for errors are may be almost glaring (but that were not
tested well enough by those using certain features, etc.). I definitely
don't trivialize how difficult it must be to make such a decision
though... I personally can't think of one policy that properly covers
this stuff.

> That, indeed, is one of the reasons for which we should continue the
> effort started a few months ago to bring back some .deb packages on
> samba.org and have these packages to be as close as possible of
> packages provided in Debian (and Ubuntu) itself so that users can
> choose to either stick with what's provided with their distro and to
> follow bleeding edge versions.

Agreed. Again, though (and this question is rhetorical), what can be
done in a situation where you know that the current release is not quite
at the right level of quality, but the previous one will be unsupported
by the end of your release cycle? I don't have an answer for that.
Ubuntu has the luxury of being able to go with the bleeding edge because
its users don't necessarily need the stability that Debian provides.
Making it the user's option to go out and get newer packages from the
3rd party itself is a nice option, but when the package shipped with the
distribution has a major problem, it makes one wonder why even ship one
at all? Tricky.

- --
 ---- _  _ _  _ ___  _  _  _
 |Y#| |  | |\/| |  \ |\ |  | |Ryan Novosielski - Systems Programmer II
 |$&| |__| |  | |__/ | \| _| |novosirj at umdnj.edu - 973/972.0922 (2-0922)
 \__/ Univ. of Med. and Dent.|IST/AST - NJMS Medical Science Bldg - C630
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFImH2kmb+gadEcsb4RAvyMAJ9MeAyBYM4zu7XLYeS76bCY5UCr5QCglmz1
sqIy1wpah1M1OLF/xzd2em4=
=ZGHz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----