[Pkg-samba-maint] I'm back working on the full Samba 4.0 package

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Sun, 2013-05-05 at 08:24 +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Andrew Bartlett (abartlet at samba.org):
> > Just as a heads-up, to avoid duplication of effort, I've started work
> > again on the full Samba 4.0 package.
> > 
> > This package includes everything, the file, print, and AD servers, and
> > uses the correct smbd file server by default.  It builds correctly on
> > current sid/experimental, but I still have some issues on install.  
> > 
> > It has now been rebased on top of the 3.6 package, which means we now
> > include many of the patches from that development stream.  There remains
> > much work to do however.  In particular, I don't think the shared
> > library dependencies are working at all.
> > 
> > I'll push it somewhere once I get more significant bandwidth, but I just
> > wanted to avoid double-work, and get folks interested again. 
> 
> As Jelmer suggested, it's probably time that we converge also towards
> a stable place to host all this.
> 
> May I suggest that you push your git repo to Alioth (git.debian.org)?

I don't have any logins there, but I'll push it to the
git://git.samba.org/abartlet/samba-debian.git samba-full-package branch
tomorrow once I get real internet access.

I purchased some wifi and tried to push it from where I am right now,
only to blow the 20MB upload limit well before it finished uploading
(because it was started from a git-svn clone of the svn repo)

> We currently have:
> 
> git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-samba/samba.git : I'm trying to
>   figure out what that may be
> git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-samba/samba4.git : packages developed
>   by Jelmer up to now
> 
> 
> IMHO, the "right" way would be either merging Andrew's work into the
> current samba4.....or just replace it and then rename it to "samba",
> moving aside the current "samba".

That's (frankly) quite frustrating at this point, as I've just spent the
time since I gave up on this previously re-basing on the 3.6 package, as
that was what was asked for. 

I already had the package against the samba4 repo.  Now, we have avoided
loosing some existing patches with the work I've done, but it remains
frustrating to get conflicting suggestions as to what basis I should be
using. 

> I though a bit more about the SVN repo conversion and, though I didn't
> try to do it yet....I think it will be a LOT of work, mostly because
> this is a multi-package repository and I doubt we can really easily
> make it a "standard" git-buildpackage-compliant git repo. And I even
> more doubt we can really merge it with the work by Jelmer then Andrew.
> 
> I'm also unsure about the benefit we would have from this.
> 
> So, my proposal would finally be to keep things in SVN for the
> "samba3" packages : we continue to develop there for versions 3
> (wheezy and squeeze security updates, maybe some backports)....and we
> use the new git for versions 4.
> 
> Otherwise, I fear that the conversion+merge work becomes a blocker and
> we indeed need to introduce "samba" packages that are version 4.x as
> soon as possible in the jessie release cycle. We *know* that we're
> likely to break upgrades of existing setups and we'll probably need
> time to sort them out.

Attached are the patches on top of the 3.6 package (r4177) that I'm
using, and that correctly builds Samba 4.0.3 (as far as I can tell), but
which fails in some parts of the install. 

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: samba-full-package.patch.gz
Type: application/x-gzip
Size: 353690 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-samba-maint/attachments/20130505/97b745c4/attachment-0001.bin>