[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #68 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-02-26 21:30:33 EDT --- Package built. Closing review. Finally. http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/samba4/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #67 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-26 19:31:08 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #61 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-02-25 12:35:07 EDT --- Indeed, all my earlier comments have been taken care of, thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #62 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-02-25 13:14:32 EDT --- Package builds fine in mock Formal review: rpmlint output: samba4.x86_64: E: no-binary samba4-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. The warning is ignorable, the error is caused by the main package being an empty shell for now. I understand this is just temporary, until samba4 gets released, so I don't think this is an issue. package name: ok spec file name: ok packaging guidelines: ok; I guess you could be proactive and adapt to the coming recommendation of %global over %define, but thats not ratified yet, afaik license: ok license field: ok, but it would be nice to specify more exactly what parts are LGPL license file: ok spec language: ok spec legible: ok upstream source: ok buildable: ok buildrequires: ok excludearch: ok locale handling: ok ldconfig: ok relocatable: ok directory ownership: ok duplicate files: ok permissions: ok, I notice that pidl uses %defattr(-,root,root,-) whereas the others use %defattr(-,root,root). Accident ? The former is preferred, I think %clean: ok macro use: ok permissible content: ok large docs: ok %doc content: ok headers: ok pkgconfig: ok shared libs: ok -devel requires: ok, it requires -libs la files: ok gui apps: ok overlap with other packages: NOT ok. -pidl includes things that are owned by other packages, notably perl-Parse-Yapp %install: ok utf8 filenames: ok summary: - consider using %global - add license comment - consider cleaning up %defattr variation - fix -pidl conflicts -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #63 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-02-25 16:46:51 EDT --- Latest (hopefully final) update. http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/samba4.spec http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/samba4-4.0.0-3.alpha6.fc10.src.rpm summary: - consider using %global I think I'll hold off on this until it's ratified and just convert all my packages en masse. - add license comment Done. Simo said the library licenses are still subject to GPL/LGPL fluctuation, but everything else is GPL. - consider cleaning up %defattr variation Done. - fix -pidl conflicts Done, I think. Only conflicts I found were: /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Parse/Yapp /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Parse/Yapp/Driver.pm I removed Samba's copy and added perl-Parse-Yapp as a build requirement. Were there any others? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #64 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-02-25 17:57:18 EDT --- Were there any others? I think /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Parse is multiply owned. Not sure if thats intentional, or if there is some official owner. Easiest way out might be to Require perl(Parse::Yapp) - or do you pick that Requires up anyway ? The rest looks ok, so approved under the assumption that you have a Requires for an owner of that directory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #65 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-02-25 18:21:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #64) I think /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Parse is multiply owned. Not sure if thats intentional, or if there is some official owner. Easiest way out might be to Require perl(Parse::Yapp) - or do you pick that Requires up anyway ? Not sure if build requirements get propagated as requirements with Perl modules. I'll just make it an explicit requirement, to be sure. Thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #66 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-02-25 18:29:53 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: samba4 Short Description: Samba version 4 Owners: mbarnes Branches: InitialCC: simo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #60 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-02-23 16:56:43 EDT --- New packages up for review. This update disables most of Samba4, leaving only what OpenChange needs. It also addresses most of Matthias' review comments. Not sure how to deal with the Python provides issue in comment #47, but the subpackage is disabled so it's probably not worth worrying about for now. Successfully built and installed OpenChange and Evolution-MAPI against this package set. http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/samba4.spec http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/samba4-4.0.0-2.alpha6.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #56 from Andrew Bartlett abart...@redhat.com 2009-02-22 20:35:22 EDT --- Is there anything more I can do from the Samba4 development standpoint to help this along? Do you need another alpha snapshot, or is it OK to cut a GIT revision at the appropriate time? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #57 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-02-22 22:08:49 EDT --- Summary of some offline conversation with Simo: The approach we're going to try is to stick with the existing Samba4 package already under review here, but for Fedora 11 disable the bits not needed by OpenChange. Basically lobotomize Samba4 until we're ready to support it. Simo needs a more recent revision of talloc and tdb, so we'll patch Samba3 to provide that (assuming those libraries haven't broken backward compatibility). I expect OpenChange to be frozen at 0.8 for the duration of Fedora 11, so alpha6 is sufficient for me. If Simo needs something newer I'd prefer a new upstream release over rolling my own GIT revision, to avoid distro-specific quirks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #58 from Andrew Bartlett abart...@redhat.com 2009-02-22 22:19:38 EDT --- I fully support this plan of action. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #59 from Simo Sorce sso...@redhat.com 2009-02-22 22:30:18 EDT --- Yep I definitely need the latest tevent and ldb code from samba4. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #52 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 12:33:42 EDT --- It's looking like Samba4 is again not going to make the cut. I'm waiting on Simo Sorce to deliver a interim subset package containing the Samba4 libraries needed for OpenChange. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #53 from Simo Sorce sso...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 13:19:23 EDT --- Release of separate libraries is also slipping :-( Matt I think it would be safe for now to just grab your own copy of samba4 frozen in a status the openchange people is ok with, and just build the few libraries you need yourself and store them into a private path as part of the openchange package. While not ideal, I think this will make it easier to release openchange in F11, once there, we will try to gradually split out dependencies as pieces stabilize upstream and become available as official releases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #54 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 14:58:53 EDT --- Too much indecision here... Matt, lets just go with the initial packaging approach. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #55 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 16:00:42 EDT --- Agreed. I'll continue addressing your review comments. I don't want to be supporting a quick and dirty hack in RHEL 6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #51 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-02-21 02:04:04 EDT --- Any update here ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #50 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-01-29 14:54:23 EDT --- Simo and I were talking about splitting several Samba libraries (talloc, tevent, tdb and ldb) into a separate, standalone samba-base package to be consumed by Samba3, Samba4, OpenChange and SSSD [1]. We also think we want to disable, for the time being, any parts of Samba4 not needed by OpenChange (by means of some simple toggle settings in the spec file). Expect more churn here before a formal review can start. In the meantime I'll clean up the details Matthias pointed out. Thanks again, Matthias. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SSSD -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #41 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-01-28 11:13:01 EDT --- Looks like the description of the -python subpackage should end in a period, not a slash. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #42 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-01-28 11:14:13 EDT --- And I think python wants to be capitalized when used as a name (compare descriptions of other python packages). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #44 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-01-28 12:41:36 EDT --- I think the disabling of the winbind package would better be done with %if %enable_winbind or somesuch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083
--- Comment #43 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-01-28 12:39:07
EDT ---
There is some mixed use of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} that should
probably be cleaned up always use the one or the other.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #45 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-01-28 14:37:50 EDT --- the main samba4 package include something called /usr/bin/tdbtorture, which from the looks of it, is a test program for the tdb code. As such, it should probably go in the -devel package, if at all. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #46 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-01-28 14:42:58 EDT --- Similar for smbtorture and subunitrun in the -common subpackage -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #47 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-01-28 14:55:52 EDT --- And I'm not sure we want a program called /usr/bin/nsstest shipped as part of samba4-devel. The -python subpackage has a bunch of autogenerated provides that I don't think it should have: atsvc.so auth.so base.so com.so credentials.so dfs.so drsuapi.so echo.so epmapper.so glue.so initshutdown.so irpc.so ldb.so lsa.so messaging.so mgmt.so misc.so nbt.so net.so netbios.so param.so registry.so samr.so security.so svcctl.so tdb.so tevent.so unixinfo.so uuid.so winreg.so wkssvc.so -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #48 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-01-28 14:56:54 EDT --- The -devel package shouldn't own /usr/lib/pkgconfig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mcla...@redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #49 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-01-28 16:26:20 EDT --- If you clean up these things, I'll start a formal review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mcla...@redhat.com --- Comment #40 from Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 2009-01-28 00:37:17 EDT --- The srpm from comment 33 builds fine in mock. Here is the rpmlint output: samba4.i386: W: no-documentation samba4.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/samba4/old 0700 samba4.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/samba4 0700 samba4.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 115, tab: line 145) samba4-client.i386: W: no-documentation samba4-common.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/samba4/private 0700 samba4-debuginfo.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/samba-4.0.0alpha6/source4/torture/raw/pingpong.c samba4-devel.i386: W: no-documentation samba4-python.i386: W: no-documentation samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/ndr.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/samdb.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/__init__.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/tests/dcerpc/unix.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/tests/samdb.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/samba3.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/getopt.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/tests/dcerpc/rpcecho.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/tests/dcerpc/sam.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/hostconfig.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/tests/dcerpc/registry.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/tests/__init__.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/idmap.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/tests/samba3.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/tests/upgrade.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/upgrade.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/tests/dcerpc/bare.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/dcerpc/__init__.py 0644 samba4-python.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/samba/tests/provision.py 0644 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 22 errors, 6 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 Trever Adams night...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||night...@hotmail.com --- Comment #38 from Trever Adams night...@hotmail.com 2009-01-26 08:49:16 EDT --- Will we see this in F11-Rawhide soon? Is it possible to add winbind for those of us who are playing with it looking to the day it can replace Samba3? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #39 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-01-26 08:58:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #38) Will we see this in F11-Rawhide soon? Not until someone reviews the package. Is it possible to add winbind for those of us who are playing with it looking to the day it can replace Samba3? For now, Samba4 is being added primarily to support OpenChange, and OpenChange does not require the winbind subpackage. It also conflicts with Samba3. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235 | --- Comment #37 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-01-23 13:05:47 EDT --- Lifting FE-Legal, Red Hat has determined this can proceed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #36 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-01-22 10:04:21 EDT --- Red Hat Legal is still deliberating over this one. Once I hear back from them, I should be able to move forward (in one way or another). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #34 from Jerry Amundson jamun...@gmail.com 2009-01-21 21:10:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #26) Andrew, something annoying I've been struggling with: If I already have the samba4 packages installed and I go to rebuild them, the configure script wants to link against the libldb.so from samba4-libs instead of building its own. So I have to uninstall all my samba4 packages (along with openchange and evolution-mapi) before building new ones. Any way to force samba to build its own ldb whether it finds one already installed or not? Has progress been made here? Annoying, yes, and I'm guessing would be a blocker at some point... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #35 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-01-21 23:11:08 EDT --- Only solution I can think of that doesn't involve hacking on Samba's build scripts is to split ldb into it's own standalone package (not a subpackage) and list it as a BuildRequires in the samba4.spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #33 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2009-01-20 07:25:02 EDT --- Update for official Alpha6 release. No changes to packaging. http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/samba4.spec http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/samba4-4.0.0-1.alpha6.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 Jerry Amundson jamun...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks||182235 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|rdie...@math.unl.edu|nob...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #32 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu 2008-12-21 16:20:19 EDT --- my apologies, my time/interest has waned, so I'll withdraw to let someone else jump in. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #28 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2008-12-18 10:21:54 EDT --- Update. Found another file conflict with Samba3 (/usr/bin/smbstatus). http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/samba4.spec http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/samba4-4.0.0-0.8.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #29 from Jerry Amundson jamun...@gmail.com 2008-12-18 13:22:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #28) Update. Found another file conflict with Samba3 (/usr/bin/smbstatus). http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/samba4.spec http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/samba4-4.0.0-0.8.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc10.src.rpm Processing files: samba4-devel-4.0.0-0.8.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc11 error: File not found: /home/jerry/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/samba4-4.0.0-0.8.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc11.i386/usr/lib/libldb.so RPM build errors: File not found: /home/jerry/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/samba4-4.0.0-0.8.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc11.i386/usr/lib/libldb.so Just me? I haven't had a chance to research why yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #30 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2008-12-18 15:57:16 EDT --- See comment #26. You have to uninstall samba4 before rebuilding it, otherwise it just links to the already-installed libldb.so and doesn't build it itself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #31 from Jerry Amundson jamun...@gmail.com 2008-12-18 16:13:46 EDT --- /me smacks hand on forehead, I knew libldb.so sounded familiar! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #27 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2008-12-16 11:25:57 EDT --- Update. Disabled the winbind subpackage so there shouldn't be any more file conflicts. http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/samba4.spec http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/samba4-4.0.0-0.7.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #25 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2008-12-15 07:24:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #24) Otherwise, wouldn't the direction of this package be faulty? If one or more shared things are in the forecast then, it would seem, disabling it until v. 4 is official is the way to go. Bearing in mind the primary reason for packaging Samba4 at this time is to support OpenChange, and OpenChange doesn't need the winbind stuff, I'm inclined to just omit the subpackage for now. Will try to post another round of updates later today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||476315 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #26 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2008-12-15 15:31:17 EDT --- Andrew, something annoying I've been struggling with: If I already have the samba4 packages installed and I go to rebuild them, the configure script wants to link against the libldb.so from samba4-libs instead of building its own. So I have to uninstall all my samba4 packages (along with openchange and evolution-mapi) before building new ones. Any way to force samba to build its own ldb whether it finds one already installed or not? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #20 from David Robinson zxvdr...@gmail.com 2008-12-14 19:30:24 EDT --- Doesn't this need a BuildRequires: python-devel? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #21 from Andrew Bartlett abart...@redhat.com 2008-12-15 00:19:56 EDT --- I will note that while it might not help with packaging, it is the intention of the Samba Team to only have one wbinfo and one nss_winbind, which will talk to either Samba3 or Samba4's winbindd (ie, share a protocol). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #22 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2008-12-15 01:01:21 EDT --- What about libnss_winbind.so, is that also compatible with Samba3? If so, perhaps we should just disable the samba4-winbind subpackage until we move to Samba4 officially? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #23 from Andrew Bartlett abart...@redhat.com 2008-12-15 02:19:53 EDT --- So, I should clarify: Samba4 and Samba 3.4 are being developed in the samba git repository - under a branch of 'master'. In that branch, there will be soon (I hope) a common libnss_winbind and a common wbinfo, along with many other shared things. But because this is not a stable protocol, the protocol used will be different to what Samba3 in current Fedora uses. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #24 from Jerry Amundson jamun...@gmail.com 2008-12-15 02:40:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) So, I should clarify: Samba4 and Samba 3.4 are being developed in the samba git repository - under a branch of 'master'. In that branch, there will be soon (I hope) a common libnss_winbind and a common wbinfo, along with many other shared things. But because this is not a stable protocol, the protocol used will be different to what Samba3 in current Fedora uses. Then, logically, libnss_winbind and wbinfo, et. al, will not be common, ergo they need to be packaged separately, or not at all, right? Put another way, do the Samba developers consider the 4.x and 3.4 as environments that can exist in parallel, or not? Either it is or it isn't. Otherwise, wouldn't the direction of this package be faulty? If one or more shared things are in the forecast then, it would seem, disabling it until v. 4 is official is the way to go. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #17 from Jerry Amundson jamun...@gmail.com 2008-12-13 21:52:01 EDT --- [r...@walnut ~]# rpm -Uvh --test ~jerry/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/samba4-common-4.0.0-0.6.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc11.i386.rpm ~jerry/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/samba4-client-4.0.0-0.6.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc11.i386.rpm ~jerry/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/samba4-winbind-4.0.0-0.6.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc11.i386.rpm ~jerry/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/samba4-libs-4.0.0-0.6.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc11.i386.rpm ~jerry/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/samba4-4.0.0-0.6.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc11.i386.rpm Preparing...### [100%] file /lib/libnss_winbind.so.2 from install of samba4-winbind-4.0.0-0.6.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc11.i386 conflicts with file from package samba-winbind-0:3.2.5-0.23.fc11.i386 file /usr/bin/ntlm_auth from install of samba4-winbind-4.0.0-0.6.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc11.i386 conflicts with file from package samba-winbind-0:3.2.5-0.23.fc11.i386 file /usr/bin/wbinfo from install of samba4-winbind-4.0.0-0.6.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc11.i386 conflicts with file from package samba-winbind-0:3.2.5-0.23.fc11.i386 file /usr/lib/libnss_winbind.so from install of samba4-winbind-4.0.0-0.6.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc11.i386 conflicts with file from package samba-winbind-0:3.2.5-0.23.fc11.i386 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #18 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2008-12-13 23:14:35 EDT --- Yeah, not sure what to do about the library. File conflicts in other samba4 subpackages were all binaries, which I resolved by simply appending a '4' to the name. Ideas? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #19 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2008-12-13 23:16:06 EDT --- Note, the samba4-winbind subpackage isn't needed by OpenChange. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mbar...@redhat.com --- Comment #16 from Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com 2008-12-12 17:58:41 EDT --- Taking over this effort for the time being to get evolution-mapi approved. I've updated the Samba4 packages to the GIT revision that OpenChange (rev 909) is currently requiring. SPEC: http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/samba4.spec SRPM: http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/samba4-4.0.0-0.6.alpha6.GIT.3508a66.fc10.src.rpm Changes from Andrew's latest revision: http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/samba4.spec.diff -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 Itamar Reis Peixoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Alias||Samba4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Comment #15 from Andrew Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-29 00:35:34 EDT --- Updated packages are now on my web page, which should address most of these issues, and others that actual use by kdepim raised. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-28 21:37 EST --- BTW, the reason I took and used the tdb_version and talloc_version stuff from the Samba3 spec is that I do expect we might update this requirement in future, as both are fairly core Samba packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-28 21:43 EST --- And I need to be sponsored -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-25 02:43 EST --- Fixes for a few of these are not in Samba.org's git tree and on my website as above -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-24 14:00 EST --- Well, I'll chip away at this (any external review help welcome). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-24 14:17 EST ---
1. Should drop Epoch: 0
2. drop
BR: ldconfig
3. drop extraneous, hard-coded library deps
Requires: libtdb = 0:%{tdb_version}
Requires: libtalloc = 0:%{talloc_version}
should already be satisified by fedora's default versions (verified F9+)
4. the -common deps
Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig, /sbin/service, coreutils
Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig, /sbin/service
are misplaced. these need to be in main pkg. (and what's coreutils used for?)
5. SHOULD use a recommended buildroot (cosmetic only).
Going to try some builds...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-24 20:03 EST --- I'll chance the tdb and talloc to BuildRequires. We need the BR: ldconfig because we use it in the build (see %install). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-24 22:09 EST --- ldconfig is an exception, that you can assume is available on any (sane) buildystem or runtime. (I can find the packaging guideline about that if you want). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-01 09:55 EST --- The License tag is still not correct (should be GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and BSD, not GPLv3+, LGPLv3+, BSD). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-01 22:17 EST --- Frankly, like the Samba 3.2 package, the situation is not even as simple as fixing the syntax. While I believe all the code to be under GPLv3 compatible licences, I'll probably have to do a full licence sweep to verify the full list. I know we have at least some GPLv2+ code (a crypto cypher, as it happens), and different components in Heimdal (which is bundled here) come under different wordings of of MIT or BSD style licences. To give you an idea of the scope of the work, the python-wmi package is actually a fork of Samba4 from over a year ago, but has this many licences: http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/universe/w/wmi/wmi_0.1.6-1/python-wmi.copyright Some of these have changed in the past year, but I use this as evidence I'm pretty certain the licence tag header will only get longer. When I get the full list, I'll fix the tag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||453395 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-01 01:16 EST --- Updated packages will continue to be placed at: http://abartlet.net/samba4-rpm/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 13:57 EST ---
Then I guess the next question is whether you would like a review of this now or
whether you've opened this to track the development effort. Not that I can
promise to do a review myself, of course; this is a big package and several
people will probably needed share the review work.
Some initial comments from a quick look at the spec; I did not build the
package:
Please use the proper versioning scheme for prerelease packages:
Release: 0.1.alpha%{alpha_version}%{?dist}
^
and increment the '1' with each new release until 4.0.0 is actually released, at
which point you can just go to Release: 1%{?dist}. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
Please use the correct License: tag; comma-separation is ambiguous and not
valid. I'm not sure if the code is triple-licensed or if different pieces of
the built package have different licenses, but both situations are covered in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines.
Any possibility of parallel make?
The ldconfig call in %install is confusing to me. What's it for?
Please use the proper scriptlets for user/group creation;
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UsersAndGroups
Shouldn't the condrestart go in %postun, not %post?
You need the proper dependencies for the scriptlets.
Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig, /sbin/service
and so on.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-29 18:28 EST --- This package is submitted for immediate review. I hope to see it included in Fedora well before the final release of Samba 4.0.0. Parallel make is specifically excluded in the samba4 build process. The ldconfig call in %install is to create the macros that a post-install ldconfig would provide, as required by rpmlint. The group add and other scriptlets are copied from the Samba 3.2 package. Please also file a bug there. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 13:00 EST --- Shouldn't this depend on the recently submitted heimdal package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-27 19:00 EST --- It should, but at the moment we have not finished the extraction of Samba-specific hacks from the internal copy of Heimdal (and the incorporation of build system magic to detect an appropriate system Heimdal etc). We are very close, but not quite there yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
