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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 21 May 2003 [email protected] wrote:

> 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.

The packages are provided as a service.  The source is the 
authoritative means of installing.  However, note that the 
percentage of prepackaged Samba releases (RPMs, etc..) 
is a respectable amount even when compared to source tarballs.
 
> 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).

The RedHat packages have been a philosphical point that 
several team members feel lvery strongly about (single package 
for all Samba components).  Don't ask me why RedHat is the only 
one we choose to do this way.  I'm just living in the rut of 
history.

since I have no affiliation with a linux distro vendor, the 
main goal is to provide RPMs for a significant portion of users 
at the time of release of the source distribution.

> 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.

Where is Mr. Terpstra?  

> 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 ...

I'm not really convinced that things need to change.  John T. was really 
the instigator here.  I was hoping he would pipe up by now with some 
ideas.




cheers, jerry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/

iD8DBQE+y+E3IR7qMdg1EfYRAnDYAKDEWzwZ4pE3KK2xy+DgQLPgJmPecwCfcGmK
T9LtyfddF5AuyO5xET/j5qY=
=xzFs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----