| 1 |
El lun, 13-10-2014 a las 12:06 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 2014-10-13, o godz. 11:59:10 |
| 3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > El lun, 13-10-2014 a las 11:04 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: |
| 6 |
> > [...] |
| 7 |
> > > 1b. samba-4 -- the new version is simply insane and hard-masked now. |
| 8 |
> > > Not sure if and when we're going to port it. |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Not porting samba-4 wouldn't be a regression over current emul packages |
| 12 |
> > that only include 32bits libs for stable samba anyway :/ |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> But it would explicitly prevent people from upgrading to samba-4. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Umm, I guess you are referring on people that can now rely on emul-linux |
| 18 |
package providing the samba3 32 bits libs even allowing them to update |
| 19 |
to samba4 for the rest. Wouldn't be possible to have some kind of |
| 20 |
"compat" package (or slot) that would only build and install the samba3 |
| 21 |
32bits libs? (that shouldn't collide with the 64 bits libs provided by |
| 22 |
plain samba packages as it's the case now with the mix of plain samba |
| 23 |
and emul package?) |
Archives