Re: samba-3.2.5 missing

["Mike (mwester)" <mwester@dls.net>]

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)