Quoting Jelmer Vernooij ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > And we could have samba "Suggests:" samba-tools if ldb tools are > > important to manage Samba 3.2 servers. > These tools are already packaged in the ldb-tools packaged. What about > just suggesting that package?
(ldb-tools being a binary package built by the ldb source package, maintained by Jelmer himself) If I understand well, the ldb package is code from the Samba4 development tree. Is the ldb/tools code in samba 3.2 source tree the same codebase? Can we guarantee our users that they can safely use these ldb tools with Samba 3.2 and they will be able to do so during lenny's life? I'm perfectly fine with just suggesting ldb-tools as long as we can guarantee the above. Otherwise, we'll need to package the LDB stuff from samba 3.2 source tree separately and make the relevant package conflict with ldb-tools (which might be tricky if this is samba-common).
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
