On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:45:59 +0000 Juha Jäykkä <ju...@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Saturday 17 Mar 2012 13:39:50 Neil Williams wrote: > > There is a new version available in unstable, 1.2.1-4.4, please check > > if this bug is still affecting your systems. > > Many thanks for taking this up, but unfortunately the update makes no > difference: OK, thanks for checking. > This bug should not really be so hard to fix: there is a new LTM version of > sssd (1.8.1(!)) and who knows how many intermediate versions since 1.2.1. > Ubuntu already has some of these packaged and taking those packages and > repackaging them for Debian is almost trivial. That needs to be done by the existing maintainers, unless the package is orphaned and finds someone else willing to maintain it. Sadly, sssd is not something I'd use or be willing to maintain. > There is one catch, though: these Ubuntu packages depend on other packages > not > present in Debian, but those packages come from sssd sources anyway (unless I > missed some), so they can simply be all stuffed into a single sssd package > for > Debian if creating new packages and waiting for them to appear in unstable > takes too long. Are you talking about: libipa-hbac-dev libsss-sudo-dev libsss-sudo0 python-libipa-hbac libipa-hbac0 sssd-tools libnss-sss libpam-sss python-sss sssd https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/+source/sssd Of which, version 1.2 appears to build only: libnss-sss libpam-sss python-sss sssd http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sssd.html Can you confirm that all the binary packages necessary to install sssd from Ubuntu onto standard Debian unstable are in the first list above? If not, are there any other dependencies which are not already in Debian unstable? > Has anyone heard anything from the maintainer(s), btw? The last *FOUR* > updates > of this package are NMU's! Petter is active on Debian Edu - Petter are you still interested in sssd or have you stopped using it? Should it be orphaned in Debian? > I am cc'ing the latest NM uploader, too I suspect that Hector did that NMU principally to allow sssd to build on armhf so that the armhf port could continue to proceed. I'd guess he isn't directly interested in maintaining sssd long term, just like me. >: I am more than willing to help with > getting this resolved since come wheezy, I will have a big issue at my hands > if this does not get fixed. I know how to get the Ubuntu packages to run on > unstable, so if that helps anyone develop a solution to this, I am ready to > assist. OK. So this bug report needs a few things: 0: Confirmation from Petter about whether the four existing NMU's are going to be incorporated into a new maintainer upload (which will, presumably, need to catch up to the current upstream stable version which may, or may not, be the same version as is currently in Ubuntu but will likely be a lot more recent than 1.2). If Petter is not interested in that, it would be *very* useful if there could be one last maintainer upload of 1.2 to include the 4 NMU's and set the maintainer to Debian QA along with the O: bug against wnpp. 1: Confirmation from interested users of *exactly* what is needed to get sssd from Ubuntu to work on Debian sid and possibly the preparation of an example package via something like mentors.debian.net. Note: this isn't about just packaging it, this is getting a working package which can fix this bug. Users are, necessarily, key to that result. 2: If sssd becomes orphaned, someone else can speak up and offer to maintain it in Debian, also possibly via mentors.debian.net but that requires a sponsor too. 3: An incentive - if #630839 is *not* fixed, sssd will have to be removed from unstable. (I've just checked, sssd has no reverse deps, it could be removed without causing problems elsewhere.) Someone who cares about sssd has to do the work. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpq3yVWo1RUv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
