On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 11:30:46AM +0100, Chavdar Ivanov wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 at 11:24, nia <n...@netbsd.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 08:19:53PM +0100, David Brownlee wrote: > > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 23:05, Mark Davies <m...@ecs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/06/21 8:32 am, Chavdar Ivanov wrote: > > > > > I force-downgraded samba 4.14.4 to 4.13.9 (itself released recently, > > > > > 11th of May). It works as expected. > > > > > The cvs diff with respect to the current pkgsrc version is attached, > > > > > in case someone else hits the same problem. Surely the other packages > > > > > using samba should be also rebuilt - and database/ldb uninstalled, as > > > > > it conflicts with samba 4.13.9. > > > > > > > > > > I basically just changed the package version in the Makefile, removing > > > > > references to database/ldb; edited the distinfo file and ran 'make > > > > > distinfo'. The PLIST was also manually adjusted. > > > > > > > > Yeah, locally I reverted to 4.13.7 which was the last 4.13 version in > > > > pkgsrc. Just added an additional patch to make it happy to use the > > > > latest ldb, but if we are actually reverting samba in pkgsrc we should > > > > probably revert ldb as well. > > > > > > Maybe add 4.13.7 plus your patch to pkgsrc-wip, so anyone using samba4 > > > from pkgsrc current on netbsd-9 has an easy way to get a working > > > system pending the kernel pullup? > > > > > > David > > > > This really isn't good enough, we're about to do a stable release > > of pkgsrc with broken samba. Samba should be fixed before we cut > > the release, we can't tell people not to use binary packages because > > they're broken. > > A little above Martin says pullups for the systems are in progress. I > guess this should be coordinated. > > The alternative would be to downgrade to samba 4.13.9. I don't know > what is better, it is all a matter of timing.
The problem is that pullups don't help systems running 9.2.
