[Pkg-samba-maint] ldb_1.5.1-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

[Mathieu Parent]

Le sam. 24 nov. 2018 à 17:41, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at jelmer.uk> a écrit :
>
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 07:49:00AM +0100, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> > Le vendredi 23 novembre 2018, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at jelmer.uk> a écrit :
> > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 10:46:12PM +0100, Mathieu Parent wrote:
> > >> I'm worried about this upload.
> > >>
> > >> Samba 4.9 is only compatible with ldb 1.4.x and samba-dsdb-modules
> > >> from sid is now uninstallable.
> > >>
> > >> It would have been good to coordinate on this. What is your plan now?
> > > Ah, shit. :( Sorry about that.

No worries, shit happens (I've done the same few month ago).

> > > I'd missed that Samba now refuses to build with newer versions of LDB.
> > > At this point the dependency is strict enough that it's probably
> > > easier and better to just build the LDB packages from the Samba
> > > package...
> >
> > Are there other ldb users of ldb?
> The only other user I'm aware of is sssd.
>
> > > I guess the best option now is to bump the epoch. :-/
> > Not needed, the +really1.4.x will work here. See
> > https://salsa.debian.org/samba-team/samba/commit/f262fc54c9e3bf6fe52ca9da5ee6e04c954d1d7d
> Hmm, what's the advantage of that over epochs? With an epoch, we
> wouldn't have to create a new upstream source.

epochs are explicitly  prohibited by policy when rolling back:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#epochs-should-be-used-sparingly

I'll handle this right now (using +really, as I don't have time to
wait a -devel discussion).

Regards

-- 
Mathieu