Hi Am 03.09.2013 um 11:50 schrieb Laurent Blume <laur...@opencsw.org>: > 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.
Fast forward 2 years, fast forward 5 years. Versioned packages all over the place. Eg possibly CSWsamba, CSWsamba4, CSWsamba5, CSWsamba6. *blah* We're *forced* to use verioned package names due to the lack of any usable catalog other then unstable. >> 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 :-/ If it would be an automated process not su much. But I have no background in packaging and distribution managment. >> You're >> tracking an unstable catalog. The lack of a stable catalog is bad >> enough off itself, but if we let that influence too much the way we >> add packages to the unstable catalog, we make things worse, not >> better. > > Actually, thinking about it, I'm starting to believe that only "unstable" and > "experimental" should be kept, the former renamed to something more neutral. > Resources are stretched too thin. Can we maintain a "stable" repository? Look > at how many people are active here. A dozen? With a huge responsibility on a > handful, Dago, Maciej, Bonivart, Yann? I never suggested to *maintain* a stable catalog. I only came up with what is already described on the website and which is an automated process. But it seems that idea was already killed of for some reasons. >> As I was trying to explain repeatedly, it is NOT started at boot. It >> refers to the `samba' binary. > > Yes, I got that. So you mean, right now, you need to run that samba command > manually, and later, you will have an SMF for it? Did I get it correctly now? > Or am I still too dense? :-) You got it. :) Adding another (default disabled) init/SMF manifest for the samba daemon is a non issue and easily be done once we have the package in good shape. -slow _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list maintainers@lists.opencsw.org https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.