search for: backported

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/debian stable dovecot (If you are using other backports you can merge dovecot etc.

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 name but apt-get update then apt-get

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.

...s. > > 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 happen...

...[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 whatever name is chosen in the end); both work in the same way. >> >> Patch #1 avoids the need to backport the entire set, however every >> change occuring after the rename patches will cause conflicts on...

...[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 whatever name is chosen in the end); both work in the same way. >> >> Patch #1 avoids the need to backport the entire set, however every >> change occuring after the rename patches will cause conflicts on...

I have several devices, mostly amd64 and armhf architectures, all of which updated samba to 4.17.6 without any 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

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

...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 the same attention and care than official packages. In the case of samba and samba-related packages (such as cifs-utils), packages are provided by the same packaging team and we are highly committed to provide a goo...

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

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:

...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 whatever name is chosen in the end); both work in the same way. Patch #1 avoids the need to backport the entire set, however every change occuring after the rename patches will cause conflicts on future cherry-picks. Downstream k...

...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 whatever name is chosen in the end); both work in the same way. Patch #1 avoids the need to backport the entire set, however every change occuring after the rename patches will cause conflicts on future cherry-picks. Downstream k...

...>> 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...

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: http://backports.org/ There are instructions there about how to install packages from the backports.org repo. The 5.0 backport was accepted abo...

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

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,

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 somebody (maybe Tom Stellard or others) help clarify whether it is possible

...heezy 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 advantage from using backports is that whenever there is an official updated package or you dist-upgrade to Jessie, your package will get transparently and seamlessly upgraded. The procedure had some caveats, so here is how to make it work. I understand th...

...(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 "nearly...