[oe] samba-3.2.5 missing

[Tim Ellis]

Thank you for re-clarifying this yet again, I had accepted the feature  
parity issue several emails ago and agreed to fix it as soon as I can  
test and get a proper fix up and was just seeking clarification. If  
you just can't wait for this - sure go ahead and submit another package.

Thanks for being so patient and helping to educate me on these  
undocumented policies.

Tim

On 31 Jan 2009, at 18:57, Mike (mwester) wrote:

> Tim Ellis wrote:
>
>> Is it right that you will want every single point release of samba  
>> I add
>> then?
>
> You need to re-read my mail.  It is NOT about point releases, it is  
> the
> fact that you did NOT just do a point release; you added major new
> dependencies and then deleted the original recipe.  It also has  
> nothing
> to do with the desirability of the new recipe -- heck it doesn't  
> matter
> if your recipe will solve global warming if it won't build.
>
>> working with as it works for all the distros I tried it on, however  
>> this
>> is a dev branch right? Occasional breakage happens sometimes, despite
>> best efforts. I hope you can see the benefit in the samba cleanup  
>> as it
>> was very messy and repetitive before.
>
> I acknowleged that.  That's not the problem. And neither is a  
> cleanup a
> problem.
>
> The problem is that you added major new dependencies in a new version
> and deleted the old one.
>
> It has nothing whatever to do with anything you're talking about --  
> it's
> really very simple!  And don't quote OE guidelines at me either.   
> Please
> grep for "_slugos" and other things in the recipes -- you'll find all
> the places where I've taken enormous pains to ensure that the  
> changes I
> make do not risk anyone else's environment or builds.  I'm not even
> asking *that much* -- I'm just asking that when someone commits a  
> major
> new recipe, that they don't delete the old one -- so that I can go
> adjust my environment to build the old one until I can debug and
> troubleshoot why the new one won't work.
>
> There would be no problem at all if, in fact, your change was a minor
> update - but it wasn't! You added major new dependencies in a dot
> upgrade, and then deleted the original recipe.  That combination of
> actions, together, is the problem.
>
>> I will probably be able to push changes discussed at some point  
>> today,
>> but after I'm happy they are all working. Normally if I get a  
>> blocker I
>> would try and talk to the maintainer and remove the package until its
>> fixed - I suggest you do that unless you are testing samba.
>
> Again, I can't follow what you're saying here.  You want me to send an
> email, and then wait for you to argue with me via email, and finally
> commit a fix that may or may not work?  That's what we're doing,  
> right?
>
> But look - I've now spent more time in trying to get this all fixed,  
> and
> in discussing this than it's worth.  Really.
>
> So just forget it completely.
>
> I'll just commit my own samba-nokrb recipe (I recovered the old stuff
> from git; it's really quite easy when one is wide awake), and we can
> move on.  I'll even put it in my own package directory to avoid any
> confusion.
>
> Thanks
> Mike (mwester)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel