[Pkg-samba-maint] Situation of various samba packages

Christian Perrier bubulle at debian.org
Wed Jul 9 05:27:09 UTC 2008

So, a short summary about samba packages:

Etch: we might need to backport the fix for #488688 as this is a
      regression introduced in last security fix
      So far, no work was made on this

      Samba 3: 3.0.30-4 is on its way to testing. It was mostly
               uploaded to guarantee that we have the fix for
               #488688 in lenny. Until then we have

      Samba 4: we don't want it in lenny

      Samba 3: Waiting for 3.0.30-4 to enter testing. Then we'll
               upload 3.2.0 in unstable. It will need
               some merge in SVN which we briefly discussed
               with Steve on IRC (privately....not because
               that had to be private, just because it happened
               in the middle of a private discussion)

      Samba 4: Planned by Jelmer. We will block it in unstable
               Jelmer: next upload of samba4 to unstable?

      Samba 3: 3.2.0 final is in experimental now. Steve unscrewed
               the problem with debian/copyright which got
               unnoticed until then. Thanks for this.

      Samba 4: 4.0.0~alpha4~20080616-2 in experimental. Few bug
               reports AFAIK. Many pending l10n updates.
               New upload to unstable?

Related packages:
      talloc, ldb, tdb: well maintained by Jelmer who's upstream
                   I haven't checked but I guess that both are in
                   testing now

      ctdb: good support by Mathieu (who just began the NM process)
            Should we consider it for testing?
            Will we build samba 3.2.0 with it?

      openchange: Jelmer is upstream as well. Not a candidate
                  for testing because it depends on some samba4 stuff
                  IIRC, but something that should go in unstable

      samba4wins: dead?

IMHO, and even if I said the contrary some time ago, we should go for
3.2.0 in lenny. Unless something really bad happens, that's the only
viable option (according to upstream) if we want long term support.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-samba-maint/attachments/20080709/b98556cf/attachment.pgp 

More information about the Pkg-samba-maint mailing list