From nobody Mon Feb 03 20:10:34 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4YmyL32R6jz5mYw5 for ; Mon, 03 Feb 2025 20:10:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kiwi@oav.net) Received: from z1.oav.net (z1.oav.net [IPv6:2001:67c:25e8:dead::20]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4YmyL25RwJz44j7; Mon, 03 Feb 2025 20:10:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kiwi@oav.net) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from localhost (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by z1.oav.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417B910CE6D8; Mon, 3 Feb 2025 21:10:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from z1.oav.net ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (z1.oav.net [IPv6:::1]) (amavis, port 10032) with ESMTP id 9Reh2i3s12kH; Mon, 3 Feb 2025 21:10:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by z1.oav.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5941610F709F; Mon, 3 Feb 2025 21:10:35 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavis at z1.oav.net Received: from z1.oav.net ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (z1.oav.net [IPv6:::1]) (amavis, port 10026) with ESMTP id i_EyCeu3EohW; Mon, 3 Feb 2025 21:10:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from z1.oav.net (z1.oav.net [193.43.215.20]) by z1.oav.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B6A10F6981; Mon, 3 Feb 2025 21:10:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 21:10:34 +0100 (CET) From: Xavier Beaudouin To: Kevin Oberman Cc: Yasuhiro Kimura , Xavier Beaudouin , Tatsuki Makino , FreeBSD Mailing List Message-ID: <78945648.55740.1738613434754.JavaMail.zimbra@oav.net> In-Reply-To: References: <1453319087.51758.1738487855881.JavaMail.zimbra@oav.net> <20250203.030645.406589481977955710.yasu@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Strange version inconsistency in Samba t* utils (e.g. talloc) List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [193.43.215.20] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_4717 (ZimbraWebClient - FF134 (Mac)/8.8.15_GA_4717) Thread-Topic: Strange version inconsistency in Samba t* utils (e.g. talloc) Thread-Index: E9a22JEUWQysADCv5pKyRD8rF9DTcw== X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4YmyL25RwJz44j7 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:34958, ipnet:2001:67c:25e8::/48, country:FR] Hello, >> But I think we should have taken following steps. >> 1. Repocopy databases/tdb, devel/talloc and devel/tevent to >> databases/tdb149, devel/talloc241 and devel/tevent015. >> 2. Update dependencies of net/samba416 and net/samba419 from the >> former to the latter. >> 3. Update databases/tdb, devel/talloc and devel/tevent to the versions >> that Smaba 4.20 requires. >> The reason is as following. >> Right now there are 3 Samba ports in ports tree. That is, >> * net/samba416 >> * net/samba419 >> * net/samba420 >> net/samba416 has already reached its EoL and net/samba419 security >> fixes only phase. So it is unlikely they requires update of >> dependecies. You may say it is also unlikely net/samba420 requires >> update. But when newer version of Samba, for example 4.21, has come to >> ports tree, it is very likely it requires newer version of >> dependencies and it is still possible net/samba420 works fine with >> versions required by 4.21 as is the case with net/samba416 and >> net/samba419. And when it really happens all we do is simply updating >> generic databases/tdb, devel/talloc and devel/tevent rather than >> creating new specific databases/tdbNNNN, devel/tallocNNN and >> devel/teventNNN ports and removing old ones. >> This is common practice in ports tree. And by following it we can >> minimize the frequency to create and remove port with specific >> version. I agree with you. We (and my mentor 0mp) should have taken this when we pushed this bunch of ports. Because of EoL for net/samba416 we wanted to push a more "usuable" version than 4.16. 4.19 has issues, seems some contributors discovered some fix on net/samba420, that can be backported into 4.19, but the feedback on 4.19 was in some case it was broken. > This explains what I am seeing, but one issue is that [ > http://bsd.default-versions.mk/ | bsd.default-versions.mk ] still shows EOL > samba416 as the default version. Is there a good reason that this has not been > updated to either 419 or 420? I obviously don't like running EOL versions, but > I also fear that running something other than the default will break a port > dependent on it. I assume that maintiners more aware of these issues will deal > with them and, in the case of samba, I really don't use it, but it gets pulled > in by filesystems/gvfs. This issue has been pushed for revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D48801, will fix this as well. 416 is still default because some of the functionalities of samba416 still have issues is some cases. Well we try to fix that... but.... the beast is big. Kind regards, Xavier