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

[Mathieu Parent]

Hi all,

(I have to admit I've read those mails only superficially. I may have
misunderstood some ...)

About talloc, tevent, tdb version updates: you can take the latest
here, the ABI is backward compatible (we only had a breakage once, and
in doubt you can check with symbols).

ldb and samba should be updated in sync, going thru experimental.
Those are tightly linked as Andrew said.

About Louis's list:
> 01-talloc  02-tevent  03-tdb  04-cmocka  05-ldb
> 06-nss-wrapper  07-resolv-wrapper  08-uid-wrapper  09-socket-wrapper
> 10-pam-wrapper  11-salsa  11-samba
>
> (* optional or needed als build deb)
> 12-cifs-utils  12-liburing-ubuntu  12-wsdd2  13-dwz  14-debhelper

Only update when needed, this is what README.source.md does:

> grep ^VERSION lib/{talloc,tdb,tevent,ldb}/wscript
> [...]
> git diff origin/master.."samba-${upstream_version}" \
>  buildtools/wafsamba/samba_third_party.py

If cmocka or *-wrapper need updates, reach there packaging teams. They
usually update it quickly.

I have never done anything for liburing-ubuntu, wsdd2, dwz or debhelper.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 9:51 AM Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pkg-samba-maint mailing list
> Pkg-samba-maint at alioth-lists.debian.net
> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-samba-maint



-- 
Mathieu