On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 18:31 -0800, Christian Kujau wrote: > Jelmer Vernooij wrote on 2011-02-25 17:47 : > > samba-common is shared between samba 3 and samba 4. samba-common-bin is > > specific to Samba 3, and the smb.conf man page is specific to Samba 3. > > When installing just Samba 4, we should not be installing the Samba 3 > > smb.conf file. > > There are currently 15 files in samba-common, 4 of them in /etc, 5 in > /usr/share/samba, the rest in /usr/share/doc/samba-common - I wonder how > much of it is really shared. How about creating a samba3-common and > samba4-common? With ~15 files in each, this doesn't sound too much of a > maintenance overhead[0]. The problem is not the maintainance overhead, but rather that we'd like it to be possible for people to install Samba 4 while e.g. libsmbclient (which GNOME and KDE depend on, and which depends on samba-common) is installed.
> > Perhaps we should look at renaming samba-common-bin and > > samba4-common-bin to something that expresses the situation better. > When I realized, smb.conf.5 was not there, I quickly installed > "samba-doc", thinking the manpage *must* be in the -doc package then. > Only including the manpage in either "samba" or "smbclient" or the like > doesn't sound right either. > So I (humbly) propose to kick samba-common-bin and create samba3-common > and samba4-common instead. As I mentioned in my previous reply we could rename samba-common-bin to samba3-common and samba4-common-bin to samba4-common while keeping samba-common around. That would make the names a bit clearer to users but wouldn't really change the situation overall. Cheers, Jelmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
