Re: llvm-toolchain-3.8 on lower arm targets

2016-11-22 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 05/11/16 17:57, Pauli wrote: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 23:33:49 +1300, Bruce Hoult wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Tim Northover via llvm-dev < >> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Emilio, >>> >>> On 4 October 2016 at 11:14, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort via llvm-dev >>> wrote: In fi

Re: Samba version in armhf?

2016-11-22 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 05:11:08PM +, Jo L wrote: > The problem with 4.2.* is that according to > https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba_Release_Planning#General_information > it is already EOL. And I would prefer a released version, i.e. 4.5.1, 4.4.7 > or 4.3.12 - in that order of preference,

AW: Samba version in armhf?

2016-11-22 Thread Jo L
The problem with 4.2.* is that according to https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba_Release_Planning#General_information it is already EOL. And I would prefer a released version, i.e. 4.5.1, 4.4.7 or 4.3.12 - in that order of preference, but that is for sure personal. For an LTS distro you may want

Re: Samba version in armhf?

2016-11-22 Thread Wookey
On 2016-11-22 14:01 +, Jo L wrote: > I was trying bananian 16.04 which is based on Debian Jessie armhf on my > Banana Pro, and it turned out that the Samba version 4.2.10 I got is pretty > much outdated. > Looking at https://packages.debian.org/search?arch=armhf&keywords=samba I > guess this Is

Samba version in armhf?

2016-11-22 Thread Jo L
I was trying bananian 16.04 which is based on Debian Jessie armhf on my Banana Pro, and it turned out that the Samba version 4.2.10 I got is pretty much outdated. Looking at https://packages.debian.org/search?arch=armhf&keywords=samba I guess this Is because there is no newer version available for