[Pkg-samba-maint] tdb 1.4.6

[Mathieu Parent]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:15 PM Michael Tokarev <mjt at tls.msk.ru> wrote:
>
> 23.03.2022 13:40, Mathieu Parent wrote:
>
> > I've added yourself as developper in the samba-team group. Please push
> > your branches and tag, and upload to unstable.
>
> Thank you for trust Mathieu!
>
> Before pushing the last d/changelog commit, I'd love to address the 3 pipeline
> failures I receive. These are test-crossbuild-arm64 (this one is not my fault
> it seems, there's something wrong with python packages on arm64), reprotest
> and blhc.
>
> The reprotest is failing here:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/mjt/tdb/-/jobs/2598031 :
> Binary files /builds/mjt/tdb/debian/output/reprotest/control/source-root/libtdb-dev_1.4.6-1+salsaci_amd64.deb
>   and /builds/mjt/tdb/debian/output/reprotest/experiment-1/source-root/libtdb-dev_1.4.6-1+salsaci_amd64.deb differ
>
> And the actual difference is this:
>
> --rw-r--r-- root/root     34851 2022-03-23 12:31 ./usr/include/tdb.h
> +-rw-r--r-- root/root     34851 1970-09-19 07:20 ./usr/include/tdb.h
>
> which is the date of tdb.h file. It makes data.tar.xz files different
> within .deb archives.
>
> I'll ignore this for now, but it is an.. interesting difference. I don't see
> anything obviously wrong in the packaging which can trigger this, so far.

Yes fixing all those would be great. But this is not top priority.

>  > For ldb and samba, please follow the same workflow. Also target
>  > experimental instead.
>
> It is basically my usual workflow actually. Except that I prefer to do some
> things (eg naming patches) more consistent :)  I used other tools for the
> same stuff, but this is not important.

Yes. the libs (talloc, tdb, tevent, ldb) and cifs-utils should be
compatible with gbp-pq, but samba has historic patches without headers
that don't.
Also note, samba master branch has patches applied, while the other
packages haven't.
Bringing consistency and standards here would be nice.

Which tool are you using on other packages ?

>  > You can also merge ldb in samba first, but this is more complex. Up to you!
>
> Yeah, I thought about this too. It probably is actually LESS complex, - at the
> very least, since 4.13's ldb is almost ready, while for 4.16 it needs the same
> work to be redone again (based on the existing MR which helps alot).
>
> I'll play around. The main issue for me is to understand the package and the
> way it is built, and the complications. Which is what I'm doing :))

Great!

Also note that the history was somewhat lost when samba3 and samba4
were merged. This is were the reason for some patches is hard to find.

> Thank you!
>
> /mjt

Thanks
-- 
Mathieu Parent