Quoting Shawn Stricker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Package: samba
Version: 3.0.26a-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Well, I do not agree here.
When the package causes the server to no be able to list share
properly to any client trying to access it, then the functionality of
the entire service is destroyed. It causes people without knowledge
of the actual share names to be unable to connect to the server. I'm
not sure how else you would call it when the functionality of a
package is hindered, other then grave.
Also, you mention in upstream bug report that the box is "3.0.26a
from debian etch onto this box using the normal package
system.". However, there is no 3.0.26a in etch. Etch version is
3.0.24-6etch4 and we will never provide 3.0.26a for Etch.
I had forgotten that I had to switch to testing instead of etch for
another package which is why after going through the rebuilding from
source i did not include that portion of text in the bug report to
the debian bug tracker. Also since the upstream source tarball is
working, that is what lead me to submitting to the debian bugreport
system instead of just dealing with the upstream developers. I may
have been able to parse through the log and find the region of code
where the problem started to fail. But I am not skilled enough with
the package's source tree to go through and perform the debug parsing
you suggested to me on the #samba-technical channel, that is why when
I was originally dealing with the upstream developer I even gave 2 of
the members of that community remote access to my machine to perform
specific testing and compiling directly.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
