[Pkg-samba-maint] freeze planning for samba packages

[Christian PERRIER]

Quoting Ivo De Decker (ivo.dedecker at ugent.be):

Thanks, Ivo, for this nice summary. Your help is much much much appreciated!

> Samba 3.6
> =========
> 
> Samba 3.6.6 will (hopefully) be released soon, so we should be able to get it
> in before the freeze. Christian, I suspect you plan to upload a package to
> unstable soon after samba 3.6.6 is released?

Yes. I would even plan to propose freeze exceptions for 3.6.7, etc. in
case some are released during the freeze. I did so for squeeze and it
has been accepted by the RM, up to a certain point in time.

However, it's unlikely that we see any 3.6.* release before quite some
time given the current upstream release rate.

But, yes, I am awaiting for 3.6.6/

> Are there any bugs we still want to get fixed in wheezy, which have a clear
> path to a solution, but which just need a little more work?

None that comes to my mind, except the work on dropping the last bit of
FHS patch that prevents using "private dir".

> I would like to get a fix in for the shadow_copy problem (it doesn't work
> without wide links). This has been fixed in master for some time now, but it
> is unclear if the fix will be backported upstream in time for samba 3.6.6. If
> there are no objections, I will prepare a patch for this, which can be
> included in the 3.6.6 debian package upload (if upstream doesn't include it
> already). This way, the fixed version of the shadow_copy2 module can be in
> wheezy.
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7287

I think that would qualify for wheezy, yes.

> 
> Christian, is there any news on the 'force user' bug you talked about?
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8598

Well, no more news than what's in Bugzilla. IIRC, Jeremy had a patch
and was awaiting for review.

> Samba 4
> =======
> 
> The situation for Samba 4 is more complicated.
> 
> The current package in unstable is blocked for 2 reasons:
> 
> - tdb doesn't build on some archs, because a test in the testsuite fails.
>   Based on Rusty's mail, it seems the test is fairly recent, so the issue has
>   probably been there for some time. I think the best solution is to disable
>   this specific test for now. I have a patch more or less ready for this, that
>   will be uploaded to the BTS shortly.
>   Jelmer, how do you want to handle this? Do you have time to look at this
>   yourself, or do you want someone else to upload a fix?

I think you should go ahead and handle the problem...unless Jelmer
strongly objects.

> 
> - http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=670413
>   The samba4 package fails to configure correctly on first installation. I
>   haven't investigated this bug yet, but I can easily reproduce it.
> 
> If we want to get Samba4 in wheezy, we should get a package in testing before
> the freeze.
> 
> Other open issues:
> 
> - Jelmer mentioned that it is probably best to rename some binary packages and
>   to remove those that will not be part of the final samba4 release.
> 
> - With the last alpha released, the first beta of samba4 should appear next
>   week. It seems obvious that this should be the version that goes into
>   wheezy.

Preferrably without the s3fs things, of course.

> - During the freeze, a lot of important fixes will go into samba4 upstream.
>   I don't really know how these should be handled, but with 2 release wizards
>   on the team, it should be no problem to clarify this :)

I hope so..:)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-samba-maint/attachments/20120527/7640de37/attachment.pgp>