After several months of testing in the "experimental" branch of Debian, samba 3.2.0 was uploaded to Debian "unstable" as of July 20th 2008 and entered the "testing" branch of the distribution as of August 1st. As the "testing" branch is the future stable release of the Debian distribution, this means that Samba 3.2.0 will be in the upcoming release of Debian, codename "lenny". That indeed happened just in time before the entire distribution was frozen, in preparation for the release of Debian (which will happen "when it's ready", of course). Having 3.2.1 (when it's released) will be much more difficult as that will require a freeze exception which the Debian release managers *will* be very reluctant to make, so I'm much less optimistic for this. Steve (Langasek) and I will need to be *very* convincing that Samba can be allowed for a freeze exception while many other important software can't..:-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Christian Perrier wrote:> After several months of testing in the "experimental" branch of > Debian, samba 3.2.0 was uploaded to Debian "unstable" as of July 20th > 2008 and entered the "testing" branch of the distribution as of August > 1st. > > As the "testing" branch is the future stable release of the Debian > distribution, this means that Samba 3.2.0 will be in the upcoming > release of Debian, codename "lenny". > > That indeed happened just in time before the entire distribution was > frozen, in preparation for the release of Debian (which will happen > "when it's ready", of course). > > Having 3.2.1 (when it's released) will be much more difficult as that will > require a freeze exception which the Debian release managers *will* be > very reluctant to make, so I'm much less optimistic for this. Steve > (Langasek) and I will need to be *very* convincing that Samba can be > allowed for a freeze exception while many other important software > can't..:-)Seems to me they should have been a lot more reluctant to freeze on a point zero release rather than reluctant at this point. I would be willing to bet that there are a lot of serious problems that would appear with any first release. I know Debian tends to backport patches, but it would seem like this would be a bit of a pain to start from this point. That's the trick with Debian though I guess: how stable is too stable, etc. - -- ---- _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ |Y#| | | |\/| | \ |\ | | |Ryan Novosielski - Systems Programmer II |$&| |__| | | |__/ | \| _| |novosirj@umdnj.edu - 973/972.0922 (2-0922) \__/ Univ. of Med. and Dent.|IST/AST - NJMS Medical Science Bldg - C630 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIl/qPmb+gadEcsb4RAullAJ9VmdJULqJQxsWRbnq5rSBCfk/JoACdH4Z7 cX92Q9Zjun5rdGmF3XYIVkM=R72P -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 08:48:53AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:> > Having 3.2.1 (when it's released) will be much more difficult as that will > require a freeze exception which the Debian release managers *will* be > very reluctant to make, so I'm much less optimistic for this. Steve > (Langasek) and I will need to be *very* convincing that Samba can be > allowed for a freeze exception while many other important software > can't..:-)As you wish, but there are several significant bugs (with printing for one) that have been fixed for the 3.2.1 release. You have to start thinking of Samba as the Linux kernel, we are now on a 6-monthly upgrade cycle, with minor bugfixes inbetween every 2 months or so. Remember, most people didn't test 3.2.0 at all before it was released, so I'm actually quite pleased with the quality of the release (congratulations to Karolin for that !), but there are several issues that need a bugfix. Jeremy.
Jason A. Nunnelley wrote:>> I'm probably wrong (I usually am) - but my understanding is if there >> is a problem with a released package, and the distro team doesn't >> want to upgrade to a new upstream version, the responsibility for >> repairing those problems lies with the packagers. Based on the >> release notes I just saw on 3.2.1 - all I saw were bugfixes, not >> feature additions. That should be reason enough to pull it in to Lenny. > > > Are we talking about what makes it into the next release of the OS > distro, or what makes it into the apt-get repository? >I'm not understanding the distinction - unless you're referring to non-official apt sources. For me, as a someone who knows enough to get into REAL trouble...I love packages and avoid source-based installs whenever possible. From the standpoint of wanting Debian to continue to be a trusted, stable platform - if the Samba team says 3.2.1 is a very important fix to 3.2.0, I'd hope the Debian team approves it. If 3.2.0 is buggy - it will result in users blaming Debian when their long-running Samba servers start having issues. It would be one thing if a really cool feature was left out - and now implemented. It's something else when there is are known problems - and a fix is now available that adds no functionality (it doesn't, right?). From the standpoint of a *slightly* more educated user, if there's an unofficial repository I can reach out to for an updated version, and it's compatible with the distro's outdated version - that gets me functional. -- Daniel
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org>wrote:> As the "testing" branch is the future stable release of the Debian > distribution, this means that Samba 3.2.0 will be in the upcoming > release of Debian, codename "lenny".Hopefully the smb.conf man page will finally be fixed. In Debian Etch there is HTML in the man page which makes reading the man page in the console a pain and causes a bunch of troff errors. MP
Slightly off topic, but: has the introduction of Samba 3.2.0, which is GPLv3, had any repercussions for other packages? Did SMB support in some packages with incompatible licenses (for example GPLv2 only?) which link to libsmb now needed to be disabled? Or was not this really a problem in practise? -- Frederik
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Frederik <freggy@gmail.com> wrote:> Slightly off topic, but: has the introduction of Samba 3.2.0, which is > GPLv3, had any repercussions for other packages? Did SMB support in > some packages with incompatible licenses (for example GPLv2 only?) > which link to libsmb now needed to be disabled? Or was not this really > a problem in practise?ping? -- Frederik