Re: Any problem with samba 2:3.5.8~dfsg-1~bpo60+1?
* Christian PERRIER <email@example.com> [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
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
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:
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
> 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
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 |