[Pkg-samba-maint] Anyone feeling like digging into the patches and see whether we still need them?

Steve Langasek vorlon at debian.org
Wed Apr 25 17:02:39 UTC 2007


On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 01:02:07PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> For instance, I find it quite strange that we still have the
> cups.patch patch. Shouldn't we default to CUPS also, now?

lpr is still priority: standard in Debian, cupsys is still priority:
optional.

I'd rather see cupsys dropped to priority: shove it down a garbage chute,
but I guess I've lost that battle because CUPS sucks less than lpr in all
the right ways for people to fall for it... :)

> Also inserting comments like the ones we use in the shadow package
> maintenance would be good:

> Goal: allow non numerical group identifier to be specified with useradd's
>       and usermod's -g options

> Fixes: #381394, #381399, #381404, #381408, #381448

> Status wrt upstream: Applied in CVS

Sure, no objections to that, but perhaps the first priority should be to get
any appropriate patches *sent* upstream so they can be dropped altogether?
:)  The make-distclean patch, for instance, should almost certainly be
included upstream.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon at debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/



More information about the Pkg-samba-maint mailing list