1 |
On 2019-03-27 4:25 p.m., Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 2019-03-27 at 12:18 -0700, Matt Turner wrote: |
3 |
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:04 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>> The samba project will most likely be disbanded shortly. While |
5 |
>>> the current project members may stay as fallback maintainers, |
6 |
>>> the following packages (being part of the Samba stack) would really use |
7 |
>>> new, dedicated maintainers: |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> I understand disbanding projects when they're really just the old |
10 |
>> "herd" concept, but this actually looks like a coherent set of |
11 |
>> packages that a project should maintain. I don't see a bug about |
12 |
>> disbanding samba. What's the rationale? |
13 |
> |
14 |
> The project's developers are no longer interested in maintaining those |
15 |
> packages, and we're checking if people would be interested in some of |
16 |
> them. It's better to have a few disjoint maintainers than no |
17 |
> maintainers at all. |
18 |
> |
19 |
|
20 |
Some of those are separate, but most of those packages really need to |
21 |
stay together, they all even come from the same upstream source... I |
22 |
don't know if disbanding the project is a good idea for that one. |
23 |
These packages at minimum all need to be maintained together: |
24 |
|
25 |
net-fs/samba |
26 |
sys-libs/talloc [#] |
27 |
sys-libs/tdb [#] |
28 |
sys-libs/tevent [#] |
29 |
sys-libs/ldb |
30 |
net-misc/smbc |