** Description changed: Christian alerted me that the monitoring[1] we have on certain installation profiles showed a small jump. After some digging, he concluded correctly that it's due to a new Recommends that bin:samba has on bin:samba-ad-dc, added in debian[2]. I raised this in debian bug #1099755[3], and it has a good summary of the reasons. My counter argument[4] for Ubuntu is also there, and I reproduce it here: """ I think I will remove that Recommends from Ubuntu. The way it is now, that Recommends means that every single fresh installation of samba (or upgrade) will get samba-ad-dc installed, even if it's a simple standalone file server. That means winbind running, and libnss-winbind/libpam-winbind configured in the pam stack and /etc/nsswitch.conf. In the case of Ubuntu, I believe we can more reasonably expect to have samba-ad-dc installed if it's meant to be an AD/DC server, because that's what our docs explain. In the worst case, since we have a release upgrade tool (do-release-upgrade), we can add code to it to manually select samba-ad-dc in release upgrades if we detect that the current system is an AD/DC server that didn't have samba-ad-dc installed. """ + The change I'm proposing is to drop that recommends. The diff can be + seen in the linked MP, but also below: + + --- a/debian/control + +++ b/debian/control + @@ -94,7 +94,9 @@ Recommends: attr, + python3-samba, + # samba-ad-dc has been split out of samba in 4.20.1+dfsg-2. Keep it + # in Recommends for one release cycle to avoid breaking existing installs + - samba-ad-dc, + +# Recommends removed in Ubuntu, see LP: #2101838 and + +# https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1099755 + +# samba-ad-dc, + Suggests: ctdb, + ufw, + winbind, + + The linked MP has some good questions from Athos, and I reproduce my + answers below so you don't have to go there and find them: + + > Do we need a FFe for this? + + I think we are reverting an unintended behavior, but I can ask the + release team. + + > Also, should we also file a (server-todo) bug to change do-release- + upgrade as suggested in the bug? + + I'm not sure we should. Our documentation on deploying an AD/DC server + starts with asking to install samba-ad-dc. My thinking was that if we + see many users hitting release upgrade problems because they didn't + follow that advice, then we could consider adding a quirk to the release + upgrader. + + > Alternatively, maybe a set of entries in the NEWS file and in the + release notes could help here. + + It's there already from debian, at the very top: + samba (2:4.20.1+dfsg-2) unstable; urgency=medium + + Active Directory Domain Controller (AD-DC) functionality has been split out + of main samba (the file server) package into its own separate package named + samba-ad-dc. This includes the samba binary, the startup files and a few + support executables. Please additionally install samba-ad-dc package if you + need AD-DC functionality on your system. + + -- Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> Sun, 26 May 2024 13:44:07 +0300 + + In oracular we have 2:4.20.4+dfsg-1ubuntu1, so it would appear there + already. + + Note that, contrary to what that NEWS entry might imply, the bin:samba- + ad-dc package exists since noble: + + $ rmadison samba-ad-dc + samba-ad-dc | 2:4.19.5+dfsg-4ubuntu9 | noble/universe | all + samba-ad-dc | 2:4.19.5+dfsg-4ubuntu9.1 | noble-proposed/universe | all + samba-ad-dc | 2:4.20.4+dfsg-1ubuntu1 | oracular/universe | amd64, arm64, armhf, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x + samba-ad-dc | 2:4.21.4+dfsg-1ubuntu2 | plucky/universe | amd64, arm64, armhf, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x + + It just was a meta package back in noble, and starting in oracular it + also started shipping binaries. + 1. https://cloud.kpi-ps5.canonical.com/d/ilYWcb-Vk/ubuntu-server-daily-metrics?orgId=1 2. https://salsa.debian.org/samba-team/samba/-/commit/4f3075fecab69ecef1611fd397be026aed0394b2 3. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1099755 4. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1099755#25
** Summary changed: - Extra dependency on samba-ad-dc not needed + [FFe] Extra dependency on samba-ad-dc not needed ** Description changed: Christian alerted me that the monitoring[1] we have on certain installation profiles showed a small jump. After some digging, he concluded correctly that it's due to a new Recommends that bin:samba has on bin:samba-ad-dc, added in debian[2]. I raised this in debian bug #1099755[3], and it has a good summary of the reasons. My counter argument[4] for Ubuntu is also there, and I reproduce it here: """ I think I will remove that Recommends from Ubuntu. The way it is now, that Recommends means that every single fresh installation of samba (or upgrade) will get samba-ad-dc installed, even if it's a simple standalone file server. That means winbind running, and libnss-winbind/libpam-winbind configured in the pam stack and /etc/nsswitch.conf. In the case of Ubuntu, I believe we can more reasonably expect to have samba-ad-dc installed if it's meant to be an AD/DC server, because that's what our docs explain. In the worst case, since we have a release upgrade tool (do-release-upgrade), we can add code to it to manually select samba-ad-dc in release upgrades if we detect that the current system is an AD/DC server that didn't have samba-ad-dc installed. """ The change I'm proposing is to drop that recommends. The diff can be seen in the linked MP, but also below: --- a/debian/control +++ b/debian/control @@ -94,7 +94,9 @@ Recommends: attr, - python3-samba, - # samba-ad-dc has been split out of samba in 4.20.1+dfsg-2. Keep it - # in Recommends for one release cycle to avoid breaking existing installs + python3-samba, + # samba-ad-dc has been split out of samba in 4.20.1+dfsg-2. Keep it + # in Recommends for one release cycle to avoid breaking existing installs - samba-ad-dc, +# Recommends removed in Ubuntu, see LP: #2101838 and +# https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1099755 +# samba-ad-dc, - Suggests: ctdb, - ufw, - winbind, + Suggests: ctdb, + ufw, + winbind, - The linked MP has some good questions from Athos, and I reproduce my - answers below so you don't have to go there and find them: + PPA: https://launchpad.net/~ahasenack/+archive/ubuntu/samba-2101838/+packages + DEP8: just ppc64el missing: + Results: (from http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest-plucky-ahasenack-samba-2101838/?format=plain) + samba @ amd64: + 10.03.25 16:57:14 Log 🗒️ ✅ Triggers: samba/2:4.21.4+dfsg-1ubuntu3~ppa1 + samba @ arm64: + 10.03.25 16:34:28 Log 🗒️ ✅ Triggers: samba/2:4.21.4+dfsg-1ubuntu3~ppa1 + samba @ armhf: + 10.03.25 16:24:25 Log 🗒️ ✅ Triggers: samba/2:4.21.4+dfsg-1ubuntu3~ppa1 + samba @ s390x: + 10.03.25 16:31:04 Log 🗒️ ✅ Triggers: samba/2:4.21.4+dfsg-1ubuntu3~ppa1 + + + Note that the DEP8 tests include setting up an AD/DC server, and joining another server to it. + + + The linked MP has some good questions from Athos, and I reproduce my answers below so you don't have to go there and find them: > Do we need a FFe for this? I think we are reverting an unintended behavior, but I can ask the release team. > Also, should we also file a (server-todo) bug to change do-release- upgrade as suggested in the bug? I'm not sure we should. Our documentation on deploying an AD/DC server starts with asking to install samba-ad-dc. My thinking was that if we see many users hitting release upgrade problems because they didn't follow that advice, then we could consider adding a quirk to the release upgrader. > Alternatively, maybe a set of entries in the NEWS file and in the release notes could help here. It's there already from debian, at the very top: samba (2:4.20.1+dfsg-2) unstable; urgency=medium - Active Directory Domain Controller (AD-DC) functionality has been split out - of main samba (the file server) package into its own separate package named - samba-ad-dc. This includes the samba binary, the startup files and a few - support executables. Please additionally install samba-ad-dc package if you - need AD-DC functionality on your system. + Active Directory Domain Controller (AD-DC) functionality has been split out + of main samba (the file server) package into its own separate package named + samba-ad-dc. This includes the samba binary, the startup files and a few + support executables. Please additionally install samba-ad-dc package if you + need AD-DC functionality on your system. - -- Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> Sun, 26 May 2024 13:44:07 +0300 + -- Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> Sun, 26 May 2024 13:44:07 +0300 In oracular we have 2:4.20.4+dfsg-1ubuntu1, so it would appear there already. Note that, contrary to what that NEWS entry might imply, the bin:samba- ad-dc package exists since noble: $ rmadison samba-ad-dc - samba-ad-dc | 2:4.19.5+dfsg-4ubuntu9 | noble/universe | all - samba-ad-dc | 2:4.19.5+dfsg-4ubuntu9.1 | noble-proposed/universe | all - samba-ad-dc | 2:4.20.4+dfsg-1ubuntu1 | oracular/universe | amd64, arm64, armhf, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x - samba-ad-dc | 2:4.21.4+dfsg-1ubuntu2 | plucky/universe | amd64, arm64, armhf, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x + samba-ad-dc | 2:4.19.5+dfsg-4ubuntu9 | noble/universe | all + samba-ad-dc | 2:4.19.5+dfsg-4ubuntu9.1 | noble-proposed/universe | all + samba-ad-dc | 2:4.20.4+dfsg-1ubuntu1 | oracular/universe | amd64, arm64, armhf, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x + samba-ad-dc | 2:4.21.4+dfsg-1ubuntu2 | plucky/universe | amd64, arm64, armhf, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x It just was a meta package back in noble, and starting in oracular it also started shipping binaries. - - 1. https://cloud.kpi-ps5.canonical.com/d/ilYWcb-Vk/ubuntu-server-daily-metrics?orgId=1 2. https://salsa.debian.org/samba-team/samba/-/commit/4f3075fecab69ecef1611fd397be026aed0394b2 3. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1099755 4. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1099755#25 ** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu) Status: New => In Progress -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2101838 Title: [FFe] Extra dependency on samba-ad-dc not needed To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/+bug/2101838/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
