Re: Any problem with samba 2:3.5.8~dfsg-1~bpo60+1?
Hi!
* Christian PERRIER <bubulle@debian.org> [2011-04-19 12:37:51 CEST]:
> I actually assume the problems we had with samba and take the blame
> for mistakes that happened for some of them. I indeed learned a lot
> with this work and I probably have a much more reliable way to prepare
> them.
And learning is good - and please don't get me wrong, I am not out to
blame anyone, I am just worried about expectations of our users and want
proper quality approaches for them.
> Still, I don't think I messed up that much....and I think that all
> errors (often dependency problems with closely related libraries such
> as ctdb and tdb) were corrected with a very high priority. And, of
> course, I intend to keep the same commitment over the life of
> squeeze-backports.
Of course quick responses are extremely helpful to mitigate the issues.
It though doesn't mean the issues didn't happen in the first place. Of
the 22 lenny-bpo uploads, 14 were +1 uploads, 7 (the half of them)
required a +2, and one upload even a +3. And those didn't happen only in
the first uploads, they are spread across the whole range, two of the
last three uploads needed a +2:
<http://backports.debian.org/dumps/lenny-backports.dump>
So yes, I am very happy that you reacted quickly, but this doesn't make
the need for those quick reactions go away in the first place.
> I still think it is good to have backports for samba because it gives
> our users a real choice between very strict stability in features..and
> breakage (by sticking with squeeze) and following the upstream
> "stable" releases (by following squeeze-backports).
>
> Given the complexity of samba, breakage and regressions are in some
> way unavoidable, particularly when a new major upstream enters the
> game (which should happen in a few weeks, when 3.6.0 is released).
Do you expect more breakage with respect to the backports than what
would hit a user that is later regularly upgrading from squeeze to
wheezy? Somehow this makes it feel that you see backports as kinda
testbed for upgrade issues. Please tell me that I got the wrong
impression here.
> To give our users betters chances to avoid such breakage, I can
> for instance propose to pre-announce uploads of samba backports
> instead of "just" uploading them when the said package version enters
> testing in the main archive. I could even "pre-upload" such packages
> to a private area so that they can get more exposure and testing (real
> testing of samba is hard because most production systems serve dozens
> of clients.
I think that might indeed be useful, and actually it could reduce your
overhead: You could prepare them simultaneously with the upload to
unstable in your area, giving brave early-birds the chance to send you
feedback right ahead before the package even hits the backports pool. If
you need help with setting up such a thing with reprepro or similar, I
would offer a helping hand to get it started.
For now I approved the package - please at least do an install test
before you upload, I know that samba has a lot of different setup
possibilities, but I guess you use it in a squeeze environment somewhere
yourself.
Enjoy,
Rhonda
--
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los | Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los |
Reply to: