[Pkg-samba-maint] request for freeze exception for samba 3.2.1
luk at debian.org
Sat Aug 9 22:50:19 UTC 2008
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Dear release team,
> This is a request for a freeze exception for the new upstream version of
> samba 3.2.1. Samba 3.2.1 is a stable point release of the recent Samba 3.2
> branch; while this is not guaranteed to be a bugfix only branch, the changes
> here are not extraneous. diffstat of the source/ directory (i.e., excluding
> the documentation) gives:
> 56 files changed, 774 insertions(+), 517 deletions(-)
> Almost all of these changes are straightforward bugfixes, some of which are
> certainly severity: important despite being unfiled. Highlighting those
> changes that are not straightforward, for consideration:
> * Improve processing of registry shares.
> * Canonicalize servername in the printer functions to remove leading
> '\\' characters.
> * Fix option processing in smbcacls - add POPT_COMMON_CONNECTION.
> * Re-activate 'acl group control' parameter and make it only apply
> to owning group.
> * Make ntimes function more like POSIX and allow NULL arg.
> * Fix error message if trying to join with a non-privileged user.
> * Cleanup some duplicate code by passing the password to the wbinfo_auth*
> * Allow SID with 0 in subauthority to be converted properly.
> * Add broadcasting of the debug message to all winbindd children.
> * Allow authentication and memory credential refresh after password
> change from gdm/xdm.
> * Allow %u parameters for print job username.
> The first of these is a rather sizeable change (117 insertions(+), 32
> deletions(-)), but it's also a change regarding a new feature, so there's
> minimal risk of regression.
> And I believe this next change corresponds to Debian bug #493752:
> * Fix trusted domain handling in Winbindd.
> The full WHATSNEW.txt (== release notes) for this release is attached.
> Is this acceptable? Note that over the course of a stable release, samba
> will typically have a large number of security uploads due to the size and
> complexity of the code base, so on balance this diff, though large, is not
> necessarily larger than the delta that would eventually be allowed through
> via SRU anyway; and it's impossible to predict whether accepting these
> changes now will make a difference for security fixes later. I think that
> this early in the freeze, we're better off taking the new upstream version
> If that's not ok, then we maintainers will need to cherry-pick a number of
> these changes anyway; more work for us, with an IMHO minimal decrease in the
> risk of regression.
> I also have one Debian-specific change on my radar currently, to try to get
> the size of these packages down size they've bloated significantly with the
> newest upstream branch.
More information about the Pkg-samba-maint