On 2014/02/20 22:44, Ian McWilliam wrote: > On 20/02/2014 9:00 PM, Sebastian Rother wrote: > >Dear Brad, dear Ian, > > > >Why aint the Version number of the Samba port raised after applying the > >security patches? > > > >>From what I see the most recent version is samba 3.6.22 but OpenBSD > >includes 3.6.15+&whatever&. > > > >If all security patches to 3.6.15 where applied it should be 3.6.22 or? > > > >If just the CVE-patches got applied: What's wrong about the other > >Bugfixes? No new functionality was added. > > > >It would be kind if you might could answer me my question about the > >versioning of this port. > > > >Kind regards, > >Sebastian > > > > > > Because it's not 3.6.22. It is what is says 3.6.15+ patch level. > > Not all bug fixes post 3.6.15 are rolled in. Only security fixes (thanx > Brad). > > Look, the Samba folk decided from 3.6.16 to change the build environment > that had been with the 3.6 branch for 15 releases to python and waf. > > Unfortunately that busted how we handle shared library versioning on > OpenBSD. > > They changed the build environment for 4.x. No issue. They could have left > 3.6 that way it was seeing it was to become obsolete when the 4.1 branch was > released. The world is linux and linux only, no project seems to give a rats > ass about much else. If it works on linux then it must work > everywhere.......... > > Our in-ports tree waf was out of date to use. Some discussion was had about > updating this. Not sure what happened after that.
Samba wants its own "special" waf anyway... Adding patches to revert upstream's build system changes might be appropriate, don't know..
