On Fri, 24 Jun 2016, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> > ah sorry, since 1.14.0 is not release yet we use 1.13.9x to track the
> > alpha and beta releases and still have incrementing version numbers. So,
> > it might be better to use '>= 1.13.90' in the spec file instead of
> > '1.14.0'.
> +1, At this point '>= 1.13.90' should be safe.
I vote for official release.
I cannot see a reason why this patch should be pushed immediately.
1.13.90 is just a sssd convention for alpha release and it can be confusing for
others whyt there isn't tarball for 1.13.90
It would allow git master to be built against sssd git master without
additional problems. It is consistency here that I'm after.

It allows it even now and without this patch.
I'm sorry I miss a logic here.
No, it does not prevent you from running with the code that does not
have needed support. 1.13.4 has no extdom certificate request support
so you would need to make sure you are actually installing the correct
SSSD packages manually while changing the version to 1.13.90 would make
clear we demand a specific functionality. It is a very small thing, of
course, but helpful to those who have to deal with rebases/updates of
their distribution packages and have not been following freeipa-devel@
list in detail. At the very least the inability to find 1.13.90 in a
regular place would cause question being asked.

Of course, 1.14.0 as a requirement wouldn't be necessarily worse too but
keeping it as 1.13.90 would make freeipa working with packages from sssd
git without any other changes.
/ Alexander Bokovoy

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to