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
On 30.04.2023 12:04, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:> > > 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 >Hi Rowland, Yes, that's my reasoning also. I previously used Louis's repo, but I succeeded to upgrade to current backports on a few servers, essentially without trouble. But better safe, than sorry. Best regards, Peter
30.04.2023 13:04, Rowland Penny via samba ?????: ..> 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.Please note: my repository has *exactly* the same packages debian/ubuntu would have - I just rebuild the source for other distributions, performing no changes whatsoever. Packages with *exactly* the same set of upgrading procedures as used on debian to upgrade from previous releases to adjust things here and there from time to time (and with the same exact bugs too, if any). So there will be no probs with upgrading from packages from my repositories to more recent versions of samba packages provided by future debian or ubuntu, - upgrade from those packages will be supported. As long as any new samba maintainer in debian will keep a possibility to upgrade to the next debian release, which is essential for debian. Louis also mostly followed this rule, but he had to do extra source mods, and had to work based on a quite messy packages, so there, upgrades weren't as smooth. Now, things are much better and the previous bumpy road with samba in debian hopefully left in the past, at least for some near future. My repositories are at least as good as debian backports, just provide more options for the target OSes and versions. The only possible issue is when I - for whatever reason - will stop providing those archives, one have to switch to something else, be it actual debian backports or someone else's repository of a similar nature. The quality of packages and support provided is exactly the same as debians. Since I update stuff in all places in parallel, - I just run extra build script after making an actual debian release, that's about it. /mjt
On 30-04-2023 12:04, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:> > > 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 >You can also create the packages yourself, nearly all the work is already done by the Debian maintainer. Download the sources in the desired version(-tag) from: https://salsa.debian.org/samba-team/samba.git and build the packages. There are a lot ways to build deb-packages, right now I use the debian docker builder for that https://github.com/tsaarni/docker-deb-builder.git. Apart from docker there is nothing you need to setup on your machine. The result are identical packages as what would be delivered by the debian repo (for that specific version). And since you do it yourself you are not dependent on whoever's repos. More or less as fast as Archlinux but on Debian! - Kees.