On 03/09/13 12:39, slowfranklin wrote:
Fast forward 2 years, fast forward 5 years. Versioned packages all over the place. Eg possibly CSWsamba, CSWsamba4, CSWsamba5, CSWsamba6. *blah*
Yes? So what? I'm genuinely puzzled now. How is that a problem? Personal hatred for numbers? :-) If it's just against your personal taste, well, okay, de gustibus et coloribus non disputandum, but it doesn't make it a *bad* technical decision: it avoids problems instead of creating them, So, why not?
We're *forced* to use verioned package names due to the lack of any usable catalog other then unstable.
Well, since others do just that, package versioning, it must not be so wrong.
If it would be an automated process not su much. But I have no background in packaging and distribution managment.
come on, how can it ever be automated? Particularly talking about Samba or other critical packages. also, I think you don't realize that packages can't just go from one repo to the other. In many cases, they must be rebuilt to fit a particular repository dependencies (when the deps in unstables are not the same as in stable). That's why Linux distros apply security patches instead of taking direct updates from upstream: they ensure that a given package is not going to change its soname or something that others depend on.
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.
Ok, I see. I think the reason is that days only have 24 hours :-)
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.
SMF dependencies need to he handled carefully, though. Laurent _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list maintainers@lists.opencsw.org https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
