search for: backport

Well, the backports.org people finally installed my backport of the latest stable version of dovecot. Please remove the Braincells apt source form /etc/apt/sources.list and add these lines instead. deb http://www.backports.org/debian stable dovecot openldap2 postgresql openssl deb-src http://www.backports.org/debia...

I currently have the dovecot-core package from wheezy-backports pinned on one of my servers to version '2.2.9', which has been working great. I now want to upgrade that to the newest version under wheezy-backports which is: dovecot-core (1:2.2.13-11~bpo70+1) but I can't figure out how to get do it. I've tried a few different formats of the nam...

The time has come for another round of stable releases. Please send (or resend) any outstanding backport requests for 4.0.4 and 4.1.3 before Friday 20 April. Note that 4.0.4 will likely be the last release in the 4.0.x branch. Ian.

...t;> 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 >>>>>> >>>...

...e problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a >>>> downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect >>>> sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost >>>> IM[biased]O. >>> >>> I agree that for backports this isn't so nice. However with the split >>> approach (that was argumented against here) it's not soo bad. Patch #1 >>> (and similar changes for the other affected structures) could be >>> trivially backported and with that it doesn't matter if you write de...

...e problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a >>>> downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect >>>> sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost >>>> IM[biased]O. >>> >>> I agree that for backports this isn't so nice. However with the split >>> approach (that was argumented against here) it's not soo bad. Patch #1 >>> (and similar changes for the other affected structures) could be >>> trivially backported and with that it doesn't matter if you write de...

...problems. But one which is armel architecture failed to update; instead I get the following when I try to update: root at goflex:~# samba -V Version 4.17.5-Debian root at goflex:~# apt update Hit:1 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian bullseye InRelease Get:2 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian bullseye-backports InRelease [49.0 kB] Get:3 http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/packages/samba bullseye/samba-4.17/ InRelease [2325 B] Hit:4 https://pkg.ltec.ch/public bullseye InRelease Get:5 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian bullseye-backports/main armel Packages.diff/Index [63.3 kB] Get:6 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian bull...

Hi, we are experiencing significant performance degradation after live migration of hvm domains in Xen 4.0 (SLES11 SP1): after live migration the performance is dropping to less than 90%. I did a backport of cs 23420-23423 and the performance is okay now. I would like to request to include these changesets in 4.0 and 4.1. The backport is quite trivial, I can send patches if you are willing to take them. Juergen -- Juergen Gross Principal Developer Operating Systems PDG ES&S...

(this mail is crossposted to 4 mailing lists, some of which being subscribers-only. Please consider this when answering if you need to) Let's see this as my first achievement of SambaXP (http://www.sambaxp.org). An "official" backport of cifs-utils (http://www.samba.org/linux-cifs/cifs-utils/) is now available for users of Debian lenny. This package can be found on backports.org, which is a service run by Debian developers to provide backported versions of software to the stable release of Debian. These backports often receive...

Hi all, I wonder if there are any pro/cons between using Samba4 of Debian's official Wheezy-backports repository which actually is version 4.1.11 -or- using Samba4 of Sernet's official repository which actually is on version 4.1.12 I understand that Sernet's package at that moment is more recent, but recently I had an issue which was Debian/Samba4 related and unfortunately I made the ex...

...: >>>>> 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...

...ot accepted. This > > will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a > > downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect > > sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost > > IM[biased]O. > > I agree that for backports this isn't so nice. However with the split > approach (that was argumented against here) it's not soo bad. Patch #1 > (and similar changes for the other affected structures) could be > trivially backported and with that it doesn't matter if you write dev or > drm (or whatev...

...ot accepted. This > > will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a > > downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect > > sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost > > IM[biased]O. > > I agree that for backports this isn't so nice. However with the split > approach (that was argumented against here) it's not soo bad. Patch #1 > (and similar changes for the other affected structures) could be > trivially backported and with that it doesn't matter if you write dev or > drm (or whatev...

...>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>&...

I uploaded packages of 1.0.17 to Debian unstable more than a month ago, and also updated the xapian-backports PPA on launchpad: https://launchpad.net/~xapian-backports/+archive/ppa But more recently and more notably, I've now uploaded backported packages for Debian 5.0 (the current stable release, codename lenny) and Debian 4.0 (the "oldstable" release, codename etch) to backports.org: ht...

Thanks. That is good suggestion. I will start to work on 4.0 now. It would be good to know the 4.0.x patch release schedule and how to contribute. I found this email containing backporting timeline for 4.0.1 (already done): http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-March/111530.html >From email, it is not clear to me whether we have upcoming 4.0.2 or not. Thanks! Yonghong On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:27 PM, 陳韋任 <chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw> wrote: > I have no e...

Aiming at a release some time in August, I''d like to cut RC1-s by Thursday next week (as I''ll be on a two week vacation starting Friday). Please indicate any bug fixes that so far may have been missed in the backports already done. A few fixes are currently stuck in master''s staging branch (or pending to make it there) - these don''t need to be named explicitly, I''m already planning to pull over the hypervisor ones as soon as they get out of staging. To my knowledge there hasn''...

Hi, I want to backport the following three patches (currently in trunk 5.0) to 3.8/3.9/4.0: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL305560 https://reviews.llvm.org/rL305608 https://reviews.llvm.org/rL306685 Some BPF users want them since their product needs to work on old linux distribution which has older versions of LLVM. Could...

Hi everyone, A couple of weeks ago I wanted to install Samba and sssd on a Debian Wheezy server. The Samba version from the wheezy-backports repo looks and feels fairly well packaged by now and is updated to the upstream version, so in my opinion that's the way to go. As regards sssd, I wanted a version supporting the AD backend (the one in the Wheezy repos doesn't), so I backported it manually from Jessie (or sid). The main ad...

...(including me with my professionnal hat) want to use 3.5 versions of samba on production servers running Debian. Of course, most of the time, these production servers are running Debian lenny (the stable version of the distribution). Debian lenny ships with samba 3.2.5, so these users need a "backported" package....or to compile packages themselves. We already had backports of samba 3.4.7, which is the version currently shipped in Debian "testing" (aka "the next Debian version"). These are available through the http://backports.org service, also known as the "nearl...