Le Mer 10 octobre 2007 08:09, Rahul Sundaram a écrit : > Andrew Bartlett wrote: > >> If there any real expectation that issues not resolved now (while >> there >> is significant movement in this issue) will magically be resolved >> later. >> Is that expectation worth the complete packaging mess that this >> would >> create? > > What is your suggested alternative? That we release Fedora 9 with no > support for Samba in KDE ? Step outside the narrow perspective of just > Samba and think about the distributions which are the gateway to your > end users. Rahul : past history proved samba users have been very keen on new Samba releases, because current samba is never "good enough". MS works full-time pushing users to situations where samba is useless and then samba plays catch-up. Freezing samba while KDE moves is not the distro-friendly solution. Users will yell your frozen GPLv2 samba has not the fixes and improvements of GPLv3 samba. You want to complain to someone for putting distributions in a hard place, complain to the KDE project not the Samba guys. Samba has been crystal-clear on its roadmap for a long time. The situation is not different from out-of-tree drivers and upstream vanilla kernel. When you depend on a large piece of complex code it's your responsibility to make sure you take into account announced code or licensing changes on this code. And itt's no use begging for indefinite postponement of those changes when they happen. (if they've been announced for a reasonable time, as is the case there) -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
