22 авг. 2015 г. 0:28 пользователь "Stuart Henderson" <st...@openbsd.org> написал: > > On 2015/08/21 23:52, Vadim Zhukov wrote: > > 21 авг. 2015 г. 19:36 пользователь "Stuart Henderson" <st...@openbsd.org > > > написал: > > > > > > On 2015/08/21 14:15, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > tl;dr: net/samba4 needs build tests on !(amd64). > > > > > > > > So, rc scripts are coming soon, Vadim is doing the testing in KDE land > > > > (thanks!), I've tested all other ports, everything works as expected. > > > > I got one glitch in gnome-control-center, where I could see the printers > > > > exported by smb but the GUI hangs when looking for the drivers. I don't > > > > think that samba4 is to blame. > > > > > > > > So that means that the switch will happen soon. I'll ask for a bulk > > > > build with net/samba4 hooked, net/samba unhooked, and all ports bumped > > > > and converted to net/samba4 use. > > > > > > > > Two points remain to be addressed: > > > > > > > > - replace immediately the content of net/samba directory with what is in > > > > net/samba4, or keep net/samba4 until the dust settles? I have no > > > > strong opinion about this. (Obviously, cvs history would end up in > > > > the Attic.) > > > > > > Personally I'd just replace it (including for the test build), it is > > > less work than moving all dependent ports to use net/samba4, and it's > > > less work to back out of the update if we need to (EPOCH bump vs change > > > a bunch of ports). > > > > You meant REVISION, right? :) > > I do mean an EPOCH bump - just the one, in net/samba, and only if we > move to 4.x there and later run into problems serious enough to be worth > moving back to 3.x. But hopefully that won't happen (I certainly haven't > run into problems using it for file-serving, though I haven't tested gvfs > with it yet).
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. > > I think that keeping Samba 3 could help in migration. It shouldn't > > survive this release cycle, but could help to debug cases like "it stopped > > working after samba package update". > > 4 doesn't build with 3 installed, I haven't tried it the other way > around but it wouldn't surprise me if the same applies, in which case > keeping both of them is not really suitable for bulk build. Of course, net/samba should be unlinked in case net/samba4 gets linked to bulk builds. I've meant that it's easier to say "pkg_delete samba and then run make install in the net/samba directory" rather than playing tricks with CVS - and you know, the amount of steps to be made for help is one of the key factors for the "to help or not to help" decision. -- Vadim Zhukov
