[Pkg-samba-maint] [PATCH] libsmbd0 and samba

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Sun, 2013-05-26 at 21:30 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 07:47 +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> > Quoting Andrew Bartlett (abartlet at samba.org):
> > 
> > > > > Also : the VFS modules were originally provided in samba in 3.6
> > > > > packages. So that change is part of our current policy to not move
> > > > > files around between packages in the 3.6->4.0 transition.
> > > 
> > > Why do we have that policy?  It seems silly to apply that to new library
> > > packages crated by splitting things out due to the way the new build
> > > system works, and the new things that depend on each other. 
> > 
> > Not really strict policy. If there is a good reason, there is no
> > problem in moving files around. But that creates more hassle to
> > guarantee that users who had some files in the 3.6 installs will still
> > have them in new installs. Nothing that can't be worked around....but
> > something that makes things more complicated.
> 
> I've added a dependency and moved the files back to libsmbd0 where they
> belong. 
> 
> > Most of the work we did at SambaXP with Ivo was tracking the
> > differences in content between 3.6 and 4.0 packages. There were listed
> > but, of course, all valid arguments to move them around may make these
> > assumptionsn change.
> > 
> > 
> > > > modules, they could need to be in a different package (like libsmbd0). But I
> > > > don't think that's the case.
> > > 
> > > That is incorrect.  The reason these were intentionally put in libsmbd0,
> > > on which samba must depend, is that the python bindings for libsmbd
> > > (used by samba-tool ntacl) need the VFS modules.  libsmbd contains
> > > almost the code for smbd.
> > 
> > OK, so maybe that change is to be reverted, then.
> 
> The only thing that remains is to ensure upgrades work.  Do we have to
> add some 'breaks' stuff - ideally I would mark every package here as
> 'breaks' if installed with a different binary version of any other Samba
> package, but that doesn't seem to be easy to do.

Is the attached the right way to do this?

It certainly seemed to help on my build box, we now only fail due to
winbind failing to start.  

(Why do the packages have to start the daemons?)

Andrew Bartlett

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Add-Replaces-and-Breaks-per-http-www.debian.org-doc-.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1008 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-samba-maint/attachments/20130526/8828c990/attachment.bin>