[oe] Update Samba

[Joe MacDonald]

Hey Armin,

[Re: [oe] Update Samba] On 16.04.25 (Mon 07:38) akuster808 wrote:

> Joe,
> 
> 
> On 04/25/2016 07:01 AM, Joe MacDonald wrote:
> > [Re: [oe] Update Samba] On 16.04.22 (Fri 11:30) George McCollister wrote:
> > 
> >> I'm looking forward to seeing these changes in krogoth as what is in
> >> there now is unusable from a security standpoint. I cherry picked the
> >> patches to krogoth and my builds suceeded but haven't gotten around to
> >> doing any operational testing yet.
> > 
> > Agreed.
> > 
> > Armin:  I've already done one merge directly to krogoth to resolve a
> > build breakage,
> 
> I just finished a a build myself and am seeing this warnings. Are these
> covered by your changes? I can send patches if not.
> 
> WARNING: samba-4.4.2-r0 do_package_qa: QA Issue: samba rdepends on
> libaio, but it isn't a build dependency, missing libaio in DEPENDS or
> PACKAGECONFIG? [build-deps]
> WARNING: samba-4.4.2-r0 do_package_qa: QA Issue: samba rdepends on
> lttng-ust, but it isn't a build dependency, missing lttng-ust in DEPENDS
> or PACKAGECONFIG? [build-deps]

No, neither of these are covered in my changes.  I hadn't seen either of
these, even with my autobuilder.  libaio is kind of a pain because in
the previous versions of samba there was a configure option to
enable/disable it, but that's gone in any version post 4.1, AFAICT.  I
hadn't seen anything related to lttng in any version.  Please send
patches and I'll merge them to both places and the samba update to
krogoth.

Thanks.
-J.

> 
>  but since you're maintaining the branch I didn't want to
> > do any additional ones (even though we started talking about samba
> > specifically in the krogoth context) without an explicit go-ahead from
> > you.
> > 
> > Do you want me to send you a patch set, a pull request or do you want me
> > to merge the samba changes directly?
> 
> Go ahead and merged directly.
> 
> - Armin
> 
> > -J.
> > 
> >>
> >> -George
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Joe MacDonald <joe_macdonald at mentor.com> wrote:
> >>> I'm still doing some testing on this and I haven't built for all the
> >>> architectures yet, but it passed at least the most basic smoke-test.  Given the
> >>> number of outstanding CVEs against our current version of Samba (thanks Armin!
> >>> :-)) I think it's best fo rus to update this rather than trying to do any
> >>> back-ports, but that also introduces a not-inconsiderable level of risk for
> >>> Samba users.  So please, if you're one of them, kick the tires on this as soon
> >>> as you can (or ping me back letting me know what your thoughts are on this, at
> >>> least).
> >>>
> >>> Thanks all.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> -Joe MacDonald.
> >>> :wq
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> >>> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> >>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

-- 
-Joe MacDonald.
:wq
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/attachments/20160425/7d9632c6/attachment-0002.sig>