[Pkg-samba-maint] ldb version, again

[Michael Tokarev]

06.04.2022 13:09, L. van Belle wrote:
> I like this..  :-)
> 
> I've started on backporting 4.16 for bullseye and later Ubuntu Jammy.
> So if the naming is as shown below, i can also go start building.

I runtime-test it on bullseye, so it definitely builds there.
Bullseye needs trivial backports of talloc, tevent and tdb for
this to work (just a rebuild with no changes).

> P.S.
>>>>      2:2.5.0+smb-1+samba4.0.16
> I expect thats offcourse..
>>>>      2:2.5.0+smb-1+samba4.16.0

Yes :)
But this very thing, the ldb "subversion", so to say, hasn't
been decided yet, and there's no new samba packages in unstable
either. It's been uploaded to experimental for a reason :)
For now whatever is in experimental builds the wrong version
of libldb2 &Co packages, so if you do the same, you'll hit the
same trap but now with wider coverage, affecting more users.

> So, im looking at the BPO settings for version-naming
> 
> Im thinking this should be right.
> buster 	: ORIGINALVERSION~bpo10+1
> Bullseye	: ORIGINALVERSION~bpo11+1
> *( out of scope since its ubuntu)
> Focal		: ORIGINALVERSION~bpo20.04+1
> Impish	: ORIGINALVERSION~bpo21.04+1
> Jammy		: ORIGINALVERSION~bpo22.04+1
> 
> I'll be using : dch --bpo
> Unless you guys have an other suggestion to use a format as above,
> Tips always welkom.

It is expected the usual --bpo will Just Work, there's nothing
in there that is suspectable, all versions are ok.

And yes that's about right for the versions (dunno if the ubuntu
siffixes are correct).

> I also had an "upgrade" thingy on ubuntu i want/need to fix,
> and was just thinking on a nice nameing fix, and i want to stay
> as close to official namings as possible to avoid upgrade problems.
> I noticed debian and ubuntu use bit different style on naming.
> 
> So on the backporting part, im trying this todo the debian way
> so we can use them within debian official.

The backport part is as easy as dch --bpo && dpkg-buildpackage -S &&
dput. Maybe gbp can do that in one go even with tagging.  I usually
handle backports for the packages I maintain, because a) it is easy,
especially b) because I do test on stable anyway, and c) because the
changes in new upstream versions are usually large and users want to
have more recent bells and whistles :)

> And guys.. Wat a fantastic job are your doing..
> This is a part i would never be able todo..
> 
> I've still a spinning head from all changes i saw.. :-))

That's the same for mine as well ;)))

Thanks!

/mjt