On 30/04/2023 10:52, Peter Milesson via samba wrote:>
>
> On 30.04.2023 10:51, Kees van Vloten via samba wrote:
>>
>> On 30-04-2023 10:46, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30/04/2023 09:37, Peter Milesson via samba wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30.04.2023 10:20, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 30/04/2023 09:06, Peter Milesson via samba wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Yvan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the information, really useful. Essentially,
it means I
>>>>>> need to wait for the official release of Debian
Bookworm, and then
>>>>>> getting the newest Samba packages from Bookworm
backports. It's
>>>>>> just a little over a month away, so there is ample time
for
>>>>>> planning upgrades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a big problem with this, bookworm hasn't been
released yet
>>>>> and as far as I can see, there isn't a
bookworm-backports yet.
>>>>> The only mention of Samba 4.18 that I can see in Debian is
in
>>>>> experimental, a long way from any backports.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rowland
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Rowland,
>>>>
>>>> According to the link in Yvan's post, the official release
date of
>>>> Bookworm is 10 June. So you imply that it will take quite a
while
>>>> before Samba 4.18 gets into Bookworm backports? In that case I
will
>>>> consider the appropriate packages from Michael's
repository.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the information, every bit helps.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do not know, I am just guessing, but, as bookworm hasn't been
>>> released yet, i wouldn't expect to see bookworm-backports
>>> immediately, that would be like Debian announcing bookworm but also
>>> saying that it is full of old software.
>>> There is also the fact that 4.18 is only in experimental and would
>>> need to progress to sid before it can get into any backports repo.
>>>
>>> We really need Michael to comment here.
>>>
>>> Rowland
>>>
>>>
>> Perhaps bookworm-backports? is less important since 4.18 for bookworm
>> is available from Michael's repo.
>>
>> - Kees.
>>
>>
> Hi Kees, Rowland,
>
> Thanks for your comments. I guess backports are still quite useful, as
> they are "official". Another option is switching to Archlinux.
It's
> always the bleeding edge, but I'm quite reluctant to take that path.
> I've been severely bitten on a couple of occasions, when updates broke
> the installations. So that's really a last resort. Only for non
critical
> applications.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Peter
>
>
Yes, backports are very useful, but all I am saying is that (and I am
guessing here) I wouldn't expect bookworm-backports to appear
immediately and when it does, Samba 4.18 will still have to migrate from
experimental before it can be backported to bookworm-backports.
I see nothing wrong with using Michaels repo for testing purposes, I
just wouldn't use it in production. Not that there is likely to be
anything wrong with those Samba packages, it is just that you need to be
110% sure about ongoing support and sadly, look what happened with
Louis's repo.
Rowland