On 9/9/15 4:00 PM, Lars Wendler wrote: > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:23:24 +0200 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: >> I don't see any references to upstream bug reports, and so no evidence >> of upstream being uncooperative. >> >> Are there any public links that you could share? > > Sorry, I forgot about the mails I sent to samba upstream [1] > > [1] > http://samba-technical.samba.narkive.com/9UGYmeiG/patch-samba-4-0-automagically-depends-on-dmapi-libdm-so
I see. I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly without more context. These are my reactions to above thread: 1. All people who replied are listed on <https://www.samba.org/samba/team/> . To me this means it's indeed "official" upstream response. 2. Upstream is indeed initially confused. 3. After reading the reference to <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Quality_Assurance/Automagic_dependencies>, they point to "--with{out,}-pam, --with{out,}-aio-support and --with{out,}-attr" flags. Notably, dmapi is not mentioned. 4. At that point I'd expect a reply from you Lars, that since they have flags for other libraries but not dmapi (or the dmapi ones don't work - and provide steps to repro), why wouldn't they take the patch. 5. In fact, <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474492> from your original post links to upstream <https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10369> with a slightly different patch that apparently has been landed. Paweł
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
