Hey all, seems like I need to correct one of my previous said statements. Please see below:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:24:05 +0200 Lars Wendler wrote: >Hey community, > >for a way too long time Gentoo's samba packages lack the attention they >would require to keep them top notch and as useful as possible for our >users. > >The reason I started to take minimum care of our samba packages was >because my former employer used Gentoo on his Linux server (guess >why? :D) and as there were also samba servers among them I had slight >interest in Gentoo's samba packages to be at least up to date on >a security point of view. >After I started work for my new employer this interest lowered even >more and all I am doing right now is simple version bumps on all samba >(and related) packages nobody else seems to take care of. >The situation in Gentoo became even worse when upstream discontinued >the 3.6.x series which still is the only samba version in Gentoo that >is multilib capable. >Given this fact I decided to unmask samba-4.0 and samba-4.1 series >although both still suffering from two major problems: > >* Until now all samba-4 packages are not multilib ready [1] > >* samba-4 packages require heimdal, a kerberos implementation that > unfortunately cannot be installed in parallel with mit-krb5 package > [2] This seems to be no longer true. I've added samba-4.2.4-r1 with "system-mitkrb5" USE flag to portage today. >So here comes a really seriously meant call for help: >Gyus, if you _are_ interested in samba then please try to invest time >and knowledge so we can make Gentoo's samba packages better. > >To be honest there are some trip wires that make solutions to the two >above mentioned problems (and possibly others) a bit difficult: > >* samba upstream is extremely uncooperative. Best example is that we > still have some automagic dependencies [5] in samba's build system > and upstream is not very keen on fixing these. And the upstream reference [6] >* samba (and related) packages are using waf as build system. One of > the most ugliest build systems I ever had the bad luck to be involved > with. > >* To make samba-4 (and related) packages multilib ready, we might need > to make python multilib ready first. I'm not sure this requirement is > still necessary - we should ask mgorny about this :) > >* We should really get heimdal and mit-krb5 packages in a shape where > we can install them in parallel [2]. Using the bundled heimdal from > samba is no valid option [3] See above. Should no longer be a pressing requirement. Of course it would still be nice to have. >* Stabilization of samba-4 still needs to go a long road [4] > > >Once again, we need your help so please help. If you are willing to do >so and have no commit access, well... I have and as long as the >contributions from any volunteer meet the Gentoo standards I am more >than happy to commit any improvements as proxy maintainer. If they >don't meet the standards, I'm quite sure we can work those issues out >together. > > >Kind regards >Lars > > >[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/534432 >[2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/490872 > https://bugs.gentoo.org/542462 >[3] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Why_not_bundle_dependencies >[4] https://bugs.gentoo.org/489762 >[5] https://bugs.gentoo.org/489748 > https://bugs.gentoo.org/489770 > [6] http://samba-technical.samba.narkive.com/9UGYmeiG/patch-samba-4-0-automagically-depends-on-dmapi-libdm-so Kind regards Lars -- Lars Wendler Gentoo package maintainer GPG: 4DD8 C47C CDFA 5295 E1A6 3FC8 F696 74AB 981C A6FC
pgpbCrqntlReJ.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
