[Pkg-samba-maint] [obnox at samba.org: about the non-linux ports patch from bug #266693]

[Michael Adam]

Michael Adam wrote:
> Hmm, I tried to send this to 266693 at bugs.debian.org as the bug
> page suggests (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=266693)
> but this could not be delivered...
> 
> Re-sending it to pkg-samba-maint with the original reporter
> and patch submitter in Cc.

Ok, Robert Millan does not seem to have a @debian.org address any
more. But at least the "mail delivery failed" message contained
some helpful hint:

550 contact me at rmh at aybabtu.com

Re-trying to Cc this address.

Robert - can you read this? :-)

Cheers - Michael

> ----- Forwarded message from Michael Adam <obnox at samba.org> -----
> 
> Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:57:25 +0200
> From: Michael Adam <obnox at samba.org>
> To: 266693 at bugs.debian.org
> Subject: about the non-linux ports patch from bug #266693
> Reply-To: obnox at samba.org
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am currently reviewing the non-linux-ports.patch of the debian
> packages for upstream inclusion. It seems to have originated in
> this bug report.
> 
> I have a couple of questions / concerns with the patch to 
> configure.in:
> 
> The patch has several hunks like this:
> 
> -    *linux*)
> +    linux*-gnu* | gnu* | k*bsd*-gnu)
> 
> This has the potential disadvantage that it may make
> less systems match. I'd change this to the following:
> 
> -    *linux*)
> +    *linux* | gnu* | k*bsd*-gnu)
> 
> Or are there good reasons for being more restrictive?
> 
> Another hunk that I found strange in the current version is this:
> 
> -    *freebsd[[5-9]]*)
> +    freebsd5*|*freebsd[[6-9]]*)
> 
> This seems to have evolved from the original hunk:
> 
> -    *freebsd5*)
> +    freebsd5*)
> 
> I suspect that this is meant to _not_ match the
> k*bsd*-gnu patterns from the above hunks, right?
> 
> But this would have been caught by the above
> linux*-gnu* | gnu* | k*bsd*-gnu) anyways.
> 
> So I would rather not change this and leave it as
> *freebsd[[6-9]])
> if there are no good reasons against this.
> 
> This way I would reduced the side-effects for non-debian builds.
> 
> Would the thus adapted patch have a change to replace the
> current debian version for upstream?
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> Michael
> 
> BTW: If anyone could put a Debian GNU/kFreeBSD or other GNU/*bsd*
> machine into the samba build farm (http://build.samba.org/),
> that would really help monitoring the working of such changes!
> Note that donation just means using some harddisk space and cpu
> cycles.
> 
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----



-- 
Michael Adam <ma at sernet.de>  <obnox at samba.org>
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.SerNet.DE, mailto: Info @ SerNet.DE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-samba-maint/attachments/20090506/30a12834/attachment.pgp>