[Pkg-samba-maint] updating samba to current upstream

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Thu, 2022-03-24 at 11:42 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 23.03.2022 12:34, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> []
> > > Yeah, that might be interesting. 4.16 should need some extra work
> > > due to
> > > the new dcerpc binary. And they also updated bundled heimdal
> > > which needs
> > > some attention too. I'll come to that next :)
> > 
> > Yes, a massive update there.  Have fun making the new massive
> > import
> > DFSG-safe, as we now take the full tree, not just the files we were
> > building.
> 
> Andrew, can you share some information here? What is non-dfsg in
> here,
> besides the RFCs (it was a surprise to me that RFC texts are non-
> DFSG-compliant).

The RFCs are what comes to mind, if the old scripts only remove some
files by name that might need updating.  

I hope there isn't anything else, but it was a big rsync!

> I hate it when one piece of software - especially when it is already
> included
> in debian - is distributed inside another piece of software.  So the
> natural
> wish is to use the already packaging heimdal to start with, but for
> that I
> definitely does not have enough experience, if it is at all possible
> with
> current samba.

Yeah, I know, but Samba's Heimdal is not upstream Heimdal, it carries
(many less than at any time in the past, but still a number of) patches
that upstream won't accept.  Also, like ldb, tdb, talloc etc, we test
with exactly one version and mixing in others is a totally untested
combination.

The Debian packaging at one point tried to know better than Samba, and
use the system Heimdal, but that was dropped thankfully.

> After looking at all this, I'm somewhat lost here. I didn't expect
> this to
> take *this* much work. It is not the work which bothers me, but that
> I still
> don't have understanding about which side to attack it all. I have to
> start
> with *something* which is manageable more or less short-term.

Was that a hot potato or a hot grenade I saw passed your way?

More seriously, I do thank you for stepping up, new energy has been
needed in this space for a long time.

> Sure we'll have to deal with 4.16 at some point. But at this time I
> think it
> might be a good idea to package 4.15 first (which was my initial
> intention)
> just to become a bit more familiar with whole thing (including
> switching to
> embedded ldb), and next try to address this heimdal thing.

It shouldn't be much of a change honestly - we have always embedded
Heimdal, but I just wanted to mention the silly RFC stripping
requirement. 

> Maybe even updating to 4.13.17 for a start (with embedded ldb being
> next)
> is already a good step further :) I think it should be done anyway
> (but
> without ldb) for bullseye.
> 
> Anyway, I'd love to understand what's up with heimdal and DFSG.

Just the RFCs and an audit really.

I would love to see 4.16 packaged.  That would help everyone as it
means it is more likely that 4.17 is also packaged in time for those
deadlines at the end of year, and the faint hope of a Debian release
also matching the support life of Samba for the most part.  (Typically
Debian Stable always has an out-of-support Samba). 

Andrew Bartlett
-- 
Andrew Bartlett (he/him)       https://samba.org/~abartlet/
Samba Team Member (since 2001) https://samba.org
Samba Team Lead, Catalyst IT   https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba

Samba Development and Support, Catalyst IT - Expert Open Source
Solutions