Re: CFD (Call for discussion): packaging streamlining for Samba 3.0

> In the past, there have been rumblings of wanted to
> streamline our packaging files.  With Samba 3.0's
> first beta release getting close, i figured I should
> bring it up again.  I know some people have ideas and I
> would like to get them out on the table.
>

I think before discussing ideas, we need to agree on what problems we are
trying to solve. And even before that, who we are solving them for.

Some questions first:

1. How does the Samba team want people to get samba packages?
a)build from source tarball always (./configure; make; sudo make install)
b)Always use packages provided by the OS/distro and only security updates
c)Packages provided by the OS/distro and updated packages made available
3rd-party.
d)Packages provided by the OS/distro and updates via packages made from
the source tarball.

2. How do packagers want users to get samba packages?
(same potential answers).

Since I maintain the Mandrake packaging in samba_2_2 and samba_3_0, as
well as maintainting samba3 in Mandrake, and assisting with samba
(currently 2.2.x) in Mandrake, my main goal is avoiding duplicating my own
work (merging spec files is not fun!). So, the Mandrake spec files in
samba CVS and Mandrake CVS are interchangeable (normally just slightly out
of sync).

3. For RPM-based linux distros, is it worthwhile investigating whether one
spec file could be adapted to work across most rpm-based distros, so that
the user could always:
$ rpm -ta samba-3.0.tar.bz2
?

This may be feasible, it may not be (we might be pusing the limits of the
available conditionals in rpm), and if it is it will be a considerable
amount work, and could lose features currently present in some.

4. Or should a single script be provided in the root of the source
distribution that builds a package (via the existing packaging
directories).

5. Should samba be packaged consistently?
Many linux distributions have packaging standards, and they don't allow a
single monolithic samba package, yet most linux distributions also differ
in the packages provided. Is there any value in trying to standradise on
packages?

I think for most packagers, the worst would be to have to maintain two
vastly sets of packages, those in the distribution, and those in the samba
source ...

Regards,
Buchan