Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: samba https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226387 ------- Additional Comments From ssorce@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-30 11:29 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15) > Schema: > Well, maybe just mark the schema file as "%config(noreplace)" ? Openldap does it for its schema files. I'll think about that, but schema files are not really configuration files, so it is suspicious for me. > Docs: > > the user can go on the website > "Conflicts: area-without-internet-access" ? ;) Solution: Dload samba-docs :-) > BTW, "COPYING" IMHO should be in the main sub-package (i.e. in "samba"). Yes, that was an oversight, I think. > Generally, the recommendation "move big documentation to separate sub-package" > does dot mean "move all the documentation". Move just _really big_ stuff to it. Ok, I'll review that. > Migration: > > it is absolutely not correct that on of the scripts stop any other just > > to do the migration > I mean that each script does migration of its _own part_ of data. Certainly, if it is possible (i.e. no situation where two different daemons have simultaneous access to some *.tdb file). Not really, that is why I want to do all in one place at one time, when I have control of everything. > Well, since initscript idea is not suitable, maybe consider triggers? It seems that: > > %triggerun common -- samba-common < 3.0.24 > stop_all_running_daemons and touch_its_var_lock > do_the_migration > > cause migration to be performed before any "samba-common < 3.0.24" uninstall, > which looks more clean than "Requires(pre):" . > > (BTW, if I'm not wrong, according to dependences, old "samba" is removed first, > then old "samba-common", ..., then new "samba-common" installed, then "samba". > It seems that if we use "%triggerpostun", not "%triggerun", then > "stop_all_running_daemons and touch_its_var_lock" is not needed at all...) No, removal happens _after_ installation on upgrades. Don;t aske me why but I tested this stuf carefully, and I don;t see, right now, any better way, it works and I'll keep like that, unless someone can show me a patch and the testing procedure used to make sure it works :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review