[arch-general] Should samba be considered out-of-date?

[Ng Oon-Ee]

On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 07:00 +0200, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
> 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 Basically this is something between a 'flag out-of-date' and a feature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.

Thanks tpowa. I'll test as soon as its out =). Don't use samba for its
actual functionality though, so I'll basically be testing the
--merged-build options (self-compile based on your eventual PKGBUILD).