samba - Jul 2025 - supporting debian-based systems before bookworm and jammy?

Hi!

I'm reviewing my samba repositories for debian and ubuntu
(http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/packages/samba/), and wonder if
anyone still needs support for older systems, - for example,
for debian bullseye?

The last samba version which can be built on bullseye was 4.19.
For later samba versions, at least some packaging tweaks is
needed, for example, samba requires a more recent ceph than
is available on bullseye (ceph_openat appeared in ceph 1.16,
while bullseye has 1.14), and there are some other issues in
there (like ldb is not linked with -ldl for some reason, so
it mises dlopen/dlclose).  I can tweak the packaging to work
on bullseye too, by avoiding building samba-vfs-ceph package
and by fixing the ldb link failure, but is it really worth
the effort?

Looking at the http log briefly, I don't see anyone requesting
samba for bullseye anymore.  Even for bookworm there aren't many
users.

BTW, is there an actual use for my repository to begin with, maybe,
with some little effort, we can finally switch to using regular debian
and ubuntu repositories?

Thanks,

/mjt

On 16 July 2025 13:13 Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I'm reviewing my samba repositories for debian and ubuntu
> (http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/packages/samba/), and wonder if anyone still
needs support
> for older systems, - for example, for debian bullseye?
> 
> The last samba version which can be built on bullseye was 4.19.
> For later samba versions, at least some packaging tweaks is needed, for
example,
> samba requires a more recent ceph than is available on bullseye
(ceph_openat
> appeared in ceph 1.16, while bullseye has 1.14), and there are some other
issues in
> there (like ldb is not linked with -ldl for some reason, so it mises
dlopen/dlclose).  I
> can tweak the packaging to work on bullseye too, by avoiding building
samba-vfs-
> ceph package and by fixing the ldb link failure, but is it really worth
the effort?
> 
> Looking at the http log briefly, I don't see anyone requesting samba
for
bullseye
> anymore.  Even for bookworm there aren't many users.
> 
> BTW, is there an actual use for my repository to begin with, maybe, with
some little
> effort, we can finally switch to using regular debian and ubuntu
repositories?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> /mjt
Firstly I'd like to thank you Michael for the sterling work you do in
keeping the Debian platform updated with the recent samba releases and for
your own repository.   Personally, as the Debian official site with
bookworm-backports is kept up to date a very short time after samba releases
a new version, that meets my needs.  So I don't need to use your own
repository at this time.    Assuming this will continue once Trixie is made
the new stable then I will continue to use the 'official' Debian
repository
for samba.

Great work, many thanks,

spindles7

Hi Michael


we may need your packages for ubuntu jammy.


Le 16/07/2025 ? 14:12, Michael Tokarev via samba a
?crit?:
> Hi!
>
> I'm reviewing my samba repositories for debian and ubuntu
> (http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/packages/samba/), and wonder if
> anyone still needs support for older systems, - for example,
> for debian bullseye?
>
> The last samba version which can be built on bullseye was 4.19.
> For later samba versions, at least some packaging tweaks is
> needed, for example, samba requires a more recent ceph than
> is available on bullseye (ceph_openat appeared in ceph 1.16,
> while bullseye has 1.14), and there are some other issues in
> there (like ldb is not linked with -ldl for some reason, so
> it mises dlopen/dlclose).? I can tweak the packaging to work
> on bullseye too, by avoiding building samba-vfs-ceph package
> and by fixing the ldb link failure, but is it really worth
> the effort?
>
> Looking at the http log briefly, I don't see anyone requesting
> samba for bullseye anymore.? Even for bookworm there aren't many
> users.
>
> BTW, is there an actual use for my repository to begin with, maybe,
> with some little effort, we can finally switch to using regular debian
> and ubuntu repositories?
>
> Thanks,
>
> /mjt
>
-- 
Arnaud FLORENT
IRIS Technologies

Hello Michael,

the wonderful thing is, that your repository provide samba in a version 
of our choosing for our servers.

So we're not forced to update to 4.22 yet, but can stay on 4.21. Im not 
familiar enough with the backports release policy to know when it 
switches to a new version.

Were currently on 4.21, but bookworm-backports is already on 4.22.

But if you decide to sunset your repositories, we'll go (back) to the 
backports and maybe pin it to a certain version.

Thanks for your work!

Have a nice day, Matthias.

Am 16.07.25 um 14:12 schrieb Michael Tokarev via samba:
> Hi!
>
> I'm reviewing my samba repositories for debian and ubuntu
> (http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/packages/samba/), and wonder if
> anyone still needs support for older systems, - for example,
> for debian bullseye?
>
> The last samba version which can be built on bullseye was 4.19.
> For later samba versions, at least some packaging tweaks is
> needed, for example, samba requires a more recent ceph than
> is available on bullseye (ceph_openat appeared in ceph 1.16,
> while bullseye has 1.14), and there are some other issues in
> there (like ldb is not linked with -ldl for some reason, so
> it mises dlopen/dlclose).? I can tweak the packaging to work
> on bullseye too, by avoiding building samba-vfs-ceph package
> and by fixing the ldb link failure, but is it really worth
> the effort?
>
> Looking at the http log briefly, I don't see anyone requesting
> samba for bullseye anymore.? Even for bookworm there aren't many
> users.
>
> BTW, is there an actual use for my repository to begin with, maybe,
> with some little effort, we can finally switch to using regular debian
> and ubuntu repositories?
>
> Thanks,
>
> /mjt
>
-- 
Senior Webentwickler
Datenschutzbeauftragter

Ellerhold Aktiengesellschaft
Friedrich-List-Str. 4
01445 Radebeul

Telefon: +49 (0) 351 83933-61
Web: www.ellerhold.de
Facebook: www.facebook.com/ellerhold.gruppe
Instagram: www.instagram.com/ellerhold.gruppe
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/ellerhold-gruppe

Amtsgericht Dresden / HRB 23769
Vorstand: Stephan Ellerhold, Maximilian Ellerhold
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Frank Ellerhold



---
Diese E-Mail und Ihre Anlagen enthalten vertrauliche Mitteilungen. Sollten Sie
nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat sein, so bitten wir Sie um Mitteilung und um
sofortiges l?schen dieser E-Mail und der Anlagen.

Unsere Hinweise zum Datenschutz finden Sie hier:
https://www.ellerhold.de/datenschutz/

This e-mail and its attachments are privileged and confidential. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify us and immediately delete this e-mail and
its attachments.

You can find our privacy policy here: https://www.ellerhold.de/datenschutz/