On 03/09/13 11:29, slowfranklin wrote:
I'd simply like to avoid a version suffix if possible. If that is not possible for valid reason, and in the context of OpenCSWs current state of branches imo Laurent has brought up valid concerns, then lets keep the current design of the Samba 4 package recipe and add a 4 suffix to the packages. There are several other packages that have versioned names too.
To be honest, I'm not sure I understand the rationale for removing the version suffix (I'm not the one who named the current Samba 3 packages, I'd have kept the number).
What's better without a version suffix? Either way look good to me from the user viewpoint, but one makes transitions harder for the maintainers.
Of course, that's for critical tools, it's not a casual user that will install Samba in the first place, I expect one to have some knowledge of it.
Now since we're really talking about having as recent as possible packages for Solaris 10 - well, someone who is still using Solaris 10 must already have some incentive to stay on older versions, else they'd have switched to a more recent OS. So for some software like Samba which can have a lot of complicated interactions, I will advocate strongly keeping the older versions as long as they are supported and it is reasonably doable. That applies to MySQL, for which I will keep 5.5 running even when we finally have 5.6 (I'd have kept 5.1 if it had been done).
Some other programs which are much less critical, of course, I believe they can be upgraded, and without keeping a version suffix. Say, eg, vim: a casual user can install that, and the exact major version won't have much influence.
I'd prefer to have a unstable catalog that could be used for its purpose and a testing catalog that offered a set of older, stable packages, but afaict testing is far from that. What happened to the automatic package promotion from unstable to testing that is descibed on the website? Eg <http://wiki.opencsw.org/releases-and-staging#toc20>: "Packages from unstable/ that have no bugs filed against them, are promoted to testing/" If we had something like that we could easily honor Laurent's concerns by going ahead and adding a unversioned Samba 4 package (ie no 4 suffix) and file a bug against it preventing promotion.
Yes, the path forward needs to be defined, but I'm afraid it'll be more an issue of resources than anything else :-/
Laurent _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list maintainers@lists.opencsw.org https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
