[arch-general] Should samba be considered out-of-date?

[Tobias Powalowski]

Am Montag 12 Oktober 2009 schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:
> Currently samba has just been upped to 3.3.8. However the current
> 'stable' for samba according to their website is 3.4.2.
> 
> As I'm sure the maintainer already knows about this, I'm wondering which
> of the changes in samba 3.4 (listed
> http://www.samba.org/samba/history/samba-3.4.0.html initially) is
> holding up adoption of the package. Is it (as I suppose) the changeover
> to tdbsam breaking current configs?
> 
> My interest in this is that samba 3.4 has samba4 sources available which
> could potentially be used for a merged-build. Unfortunately the build
> process for samba (as seen in the samba 3.3 PKGBUILD) is really scary
> for me, so I'm hesitant to try it out, also I would have no way of
> knowing if any eventual samba 3.4 package would be able to replace samba
> 3.3 functionality.
> 
> Basically this is something between a 'flag out-of-date' and a feature
> request.
> 
Sure i'm aware of it, but i need some time to get into the new samba build 
process.
It's on my TODO list and if i have more time i'll put the new samba to 
testing.

greetings
tpowa
-- 
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
http://www.archlinux.org
tpowa at archlinux.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20091012/8b72e1f9/attachment.bin>