[Pkg-samba-maint] I'm back working on the full Samba 4.0 package

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 10:24 +0200, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> Andrew,
> 
> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 02:24:08PM +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > OK.  I've rebased on the new repo, and have the result at
> > 
> > git://git.samba.org/abartlet/samba-debian.git
> > samba-full-package-on-new-repo
> 
> OK, thanks. I will take a look at this soon.

I've just updated that branch to package 4.0.5.   I had to package
tevent 0.9.18 to do that.  I've uploaded the updated tevent package
stuff:

http://abartlet.net/samba4-debian/

We probably want to get that into experimental soon too.  We also need
to clean up after the mess I left with the last lot of upgrades, and
figure out what changes need to be made to what bzr/svn/git and other
repositories to record all this.  I've still got the branches I used to
generate the previous packages (I think), but what I don't know/recall
is if these exactly match what was eventually submitted. 

> > Do we want to import my patch stream, even with TODO stuff in there, or
> > wait until those are resolved, or just remove the markers and maintain
> > the issue list elsewhere?
> 
> I see no problem importing it all. If necessary, it can be cleaned up later.
> It's probably not a bad idea to keep the TODO stuff in de repo, so it's
> clearly linked to that specific version.
> 
> > > I totally agree that we should get rid of these patches. We had issues with
> > > these as well in samba 3.6 just a few weeks ago. If I remember correctly, the
> > > only real exception is smbpasswd, which is in /etc/samba instead of
> > > /var/lib/samba. If smbpasswd is still supported in samba 4, maybe we should
> > > get a separate upstream build option to move smbpasswd, so that all other
> > > files can be put in their location with build options instead of patches.
> > > 
> > > Once it's clear where everything was and where it needs to be, it's just a
> > > matter of moving everything on upgrade. As we had to do this for samba 3.6, we
> > > unfortunately have example scripts for this, so this shouldn't be a big deal.
> > 
> > I dislike adding more build options, but if you need to, everything is
> > already set up to do that, just not exposed.  
> 
> I understand, and we should avoid them as much as possible. But it still is
> better than patching the code for the Debian packages. That will just give us
> more problems later on when the code changes (as we've seen in the past).

Indeed.  I won't be an intrusive patch.  The other option is just to
move the smbpasswd file to private/.

> > Even just re-writing the doc patches into git-format-patch format for
> > upstream Samba master will mean I can just apply them, and have them
> > re-appear in 4.0.6 due May 26.  (Rather than have them languish on bugs,
> > if I get a mail with a set of stuff I can just apply, I'm very happy to
> > apply them.  For example, testprns is long gone in Samba, not just in
> > debian Samba). 
> 
> I'll try to go over our patches again, to see what can be forwarded upstream.
> When is the deadline for 4.0.6?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ivo
> 

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org