Am 03.09.2013 um 15:49 schrieb Laurent Blume <laur...@opencsw.org>: > On 03/09/13 14:45, slowfranklin wrote: >> Well, we'll also need versioned libraries like CSWsamba4-libwclient0, >> CSWsamba4-libsmbclient0. > > For that specific library, actually, it should not be needed, bad > example ;-)
No? Why not?! Otherwise we'd have the same package (eg CSWlibwbclient0) built from two different recipes uploaded to the catalog. Am I missing sth? > Okay, I see what you mean, but I don't see it as a problem: mgar, pkgchk and > friends make it all too easy to handle. > >> Well, since others (Debian, Fedora, ArchLinux) were all going for an >> inplace upgrade, I considered that the obvious choice for an unstable >> rolling catalog. > > At least for Debian, that's not the case: they're planning on phasing out > Samba 3, but it's not close at all. Hold on. I was not referring to what Debian as a whole achieves by using different catalogs/distributions or backports. I said "obvious choice for an unstable rolling catalog" which would be unstable/sid in the Debian case. And apparently Debian is going to use an unversioned Samba 4 package in sid. -slow _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list maintainers@lists.opencsw.org https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
