On (03/05/16 18:48), Robbie Harwood wrote:
>Lukas Slebodnik <lsleb...@redhat.com> writes:
>> On (03/05/16 12:29), Robbie Harwood wrote:
>>>David Kupka <dku...@redhat.com> writes:
>>>> --8<------------- trac-ticket-template-proposal ------------------->8--
>>>> Related SW versions:
>>>> On server:
>>>> $ rpm -q freeipa-server pki-base 389-ds-base bind samba krb5-server
>>> I think this is a good idea. However, we are on Debian/family as
>>> well now, and I think we want to accept bugs that come from these
>>> users as well.
>> FreeIPA is heavily patched on debian and has quite old version there
>> The better would be recommend to reproduce with upstream version
>(FreeIPA 4.1.4 is available on Debian, but your point still stands.)
4.1.4 is only in experimental.
and sid(ustable) has only 4.0.5
Neither of these versions has long term support from upstream point of view.
And try to look into patches
>In summary: I don't like that upstream is conflated with fedora/CentOS.
>Of course I understand that this was done to ease development and not
>out of malice. But longer term I would like Debian/Ubuntu FreeIPA to be
>less of an afterthought because I believe we can attract users to our
>product. I believe this to be especially true with working
>freeipa-client on those distros, which we now have and I am very happy
If freeipa get to the state that there will not be any non-upstream
patches in distibutions then we will not consider Fedora as upstream.
It might easily happen that non-upstream patch caused a bug.
BTW sssd is already in such state. Therefore we needn't care
about distribution; we just need to know the version of sssd.
Fell free to send patches if you want to have debian as 1st class citizen for
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code