mjt at tls.msk.ru
Fri Oct 21 19:52:45 UTC 2022
21.10.2022 22:42, Lorenzo Milesi via samba wrote:
>> What do you want samba 4.15 for?
>> Why do you want samba 4.16 provided you have samba 4.17?
>> what's the reason to keep several *samba* versions?
> As said, many people, many requirements. Maybe someone wants to stick with 4.16 for their own reasons.
> IF POSSIBLE, it would be great to offer different opportunities.
Great for what? Why someone wants to stick with 4.16 or 4.15?
>>> I understand your point, which is correct on the distro side. Unfortunately,
>>> this doesn't always match the vendor side, which requires you to run a "stable"
>>> version of the software to get support.
>> I don't understand what are you saying.
> I was simply saying that sometimes distributions requirement are different from vendor requirements.
> Often, distro provided Samba versions are not supported by Samba community.
> At this time, Bullseye ships 4.16 with backports which is great.
I for one definitely don't have plans to support samba which is not
supported by upstream (vendor?).
>> There's nothing to participate in, really. It is just a matter of an extra
>> command or two to build a set of packages for other distribution for example.
>> The question is what exactly we want to achieve - that's what I asked.
> Current goal: provide Samba packages (possibly via apt repo) for stable and maintenance for Debian 11, Ubuntu 20 and 22.
What does "stable and maintenance" mean? Like 4.15 and 4.16?
> Later on, if it was on me, provide as much as possible historical packages for older Samba versions, as well as Deb and Ubuntu, compatible with shipped distro libraries.
Again, what for? to have a big collection to show to someone? What *practical* reason it provides?
More information about the samba