What is blocking a Samba4 Tech Preview?

[simo]

On mar, 2005-12-20 at 08:01 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 12:55:00AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 03:42:04PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 03:52:02AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > >> There currently is an upgrade script that reads in a Samba3 smb.conf
> > > >> file and the various Samba3 TDB files and writes out the appropriate
> > > >> Samba4 data files. I guess you'd be using these in upgrades. 
> > > > Ok.  Does the current packaging use this? :-)
> > 
> > > No, currently it doesn't. I'm a bit unsure if we really want to make the
> > > samba4 packages direct upgrades from samba, though (ie. calling them just
> > > "samba" with a version number of 3.9.something), given that a downgrade would
> > > be downright impossible... This is definitely your call, though; we could
> > > probably adjust the packaging to match names more properly (giving direct
> > > upgrades) if there's a desire for it.
> > 
> > Does having them installed under a different package name make it easier for
> > the user to downgrade?  Isn't the best-case downgrade process in both cases
> > going to be "uninstall the samba4 version of the package, manually massage
> > your config back into a usable state (or restore from backup), and install
> > the samba3 version"?  If so, I see no reason to not begin supporting direct
> > upgrades (and debugging them).
> 
> As we have something of a code fork in development, it's probably a good idea to keep
> the Samba4 prefix to make sure that this isn't seen as a seamless upgrade. I don't
> think it will be.

I agree, I'd keep the samba4 prefix.
I'm also sure we will often fail the upgrade (think of users using
different backends then tdbsam, eg. ldapsam). So I would not try to
upgrade automatically in the postinst, people may try to upgrade by
mistake.

Simo.