20.10.2022 19:38, Kees van Vloten via samba wrote:> While we were just talking about 4.18, another question pops up. > > I noticed 4.17.1 has been release this week. > > But I am still running on 4.16.2, the last in Louis' repo. I checked Debian backports and it has 4.16.5 for Bullseye. > @Michael and/or @Louis is there a planning for 4.17?I backport samba stuff from debian testing quite promptly, usually the same day the new upload to unstable is migrated to testing, - but this is for current 4.16.x series which is now more or less stable. For 4.17, I already uploaded 4.17.1 to experimental (before it had 4.17.0). So far I'm a bit hesitant to upload it to unstable, due to the amount of fixes which went to 4.17.1. Maybe 4.17.2 will go directly to unstable and next migrates to testing. But so far to me it looks like 4.16 is "better" than 4.17, - that's why I put the latter into the experimental "distribution". As soon as 4.17 hits testing, I'll backport it to bullseye. Debian can't have several concurrent versions of the same package in a single distribution, so there can be only one samba in testing, basically. And this is the main "distribution point" for any new stuff. /mjt
On 20-10-2022 18:52, Michael Tokarev wrote:> 20.10.2022 19:38, Kees van Vloten via samba wrote: >> While we were just talking about 4.18, another question pops up. >> >> I noticed 4.17.1 has been release this week. >> >> But I am still running on 4.16.2, the last in Louis' repo. I checked >> Debian backports and it has 4.16.5 for Bullseye. >> @Michael and/or @Louis is there a planning for 4.17? > > I backport samba stuff from debian testing quite promptly, usually the > same day the new upload to unstable is migrated to testing, - but this > is for current 4.16.x series which is now more or less stable. > > For 4.17, I already uploaded 4.17.1 to experimental (before it had > 4.17.0). So far I'm a bit hesitant to upload it to unstable, due to > the amount of fixes which went to 4.17.1.? Maybe 4.17.2 will go > directly to unstable and next migrates to testing.? But so far to > me it looks like 4.16 is "better" than 4.17, - that's why I put the > latter into the experimental "distribution". > > As soon as 4.17 hits testing, I'll backport it to bullseye. > > Debian can't have several concurrent versions of the same package > in a single distribution, so there can be only one samba in testing, > basically. And this is the main "distribution point" for any new > stuff. > > /mjtThat's a clear explanation. Thank you for the update !
On Thu, 2022-10-20 at 19:52 +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote:> 20.10.2022 19:38, Kees van Vloten via samba wrote: > > While we were just talking about 4.18, another question pops up. > > > > I noticed 4.17.1 has been release this week. > > > > But I am still running on 4.16.2, the last in Louis' repo. I checked Debian backports and it has 4.16.5 for Bullseye. > > @Michael and/or @Louis is there a planning for 4.17? > > I backport samba stuff from debian testing quite promptly, usually the > same day the new upload to unstable is migrated to testing, - but this > is for current 4.16.x series which is now more or less stable. > > For 4.17, I already uploaded 4.17.1 to experimental (before it had > 4.17.0). So far I'm a bit hesitant to upload it to unstable, due to > the amount of fixes which went to 4.17.1.?I would just note for context that it looks to me like less than the normal set of patches, except that simply due to timing the CVE-2021- 20251 fixes landed after 4.17.0 not before. The changes around the GET_ANC stuff, and so the selftest changes they brought in as a depenency were not a regression or bug fix, just a useful new feature that I had reason to want in upstream releases, but are likewise not a sign of a branch 'not yet ready' either. 4.17 seems to be landing fairly well actually. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett (he/him) https://samba.org/~abartlet/ Samba Team Member (since 2001) https://samba.org Samba Developer, Catalyst IT https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba