What is blocking a Samba4 Tech Preview?

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 23:11 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 08:01:23AM -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 appreciate that this is the situation today, but I don't foresee shipping
> both samba3 and samba4 together in a stable Debian release.  If the eventual
> target is that samba4 will be a direct replacement for samba3

Well, this isn't a target for the initial release, and is going to take
quite a while to achieve (particularly at the current development pace).

> , then I
> consider it our responsibility as Debian package maintainers to make it a
> direct, automatic, and seamless replacement by the point we're ready to
> include it in a stable release.  With this goal in mind, it makes sense to
> me that we would want to start working out the bugs in this upgrade path
> sooner rather than later.

Even if we cannot create a direct replacement, upgrade should be as
seamless as possible.  I need to look at jelmer's scripts again...

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College  http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20051222/928c53ec/attachment.bin