[Mageia-dev] new samba-squid subpackage proporsal

Buchan Milne bgmilne at staff.telkomsa.net
Wed Aug 3 14:01:16 CEST 2011

On Tuesday, 2 August 2011 22:23:24 Maarten Vanraes wrote:
> Op dinsdag 02 augustus 2011 17:04:41 schreef Buchan Milne:
> > Samba-common is the right package for this. I see no need to have a
> > squid- specific subpackage (and then samba-apache, samba-freeradius,
> > with the same content, or all virtual packages just pulling
> > samba-common).
> > 
> > Feel free to mess up your squid package by adding suggests on
> > samba-common, but since installing the right package is trivially solved
> > by the admin and is a small portion of the work required, I would
> > personally prefer not to increase the default footprint of any
> > installation that pulls in squid.

> this is really imho an example where conditional suggests could work well:
> if you have squid already installed and you're installing samba, this
> subpackage could then be suggested. (and vice versa).

But, it is irrelevant. samba-common is required by both samba-client and 
samba-server, so you can't install samba without getting ntlm_auth.

This is really about whether squid should pull in any pieces of samba by 
default, and could be solved by adding:
Suggests: samba-common

to squid. But, I don't see much value, as this is a small part of the work 
required to get a single-sign on authentication solution for squid against AD. 
The default squid.conf already has example configs showing that ntlm_auth is 
required, and all we are saving the user is a 'urpmf ntlm_auth' and a 'urpmi 
samba-common'. However, there are many scenarios squid can be deployed (e.g. 
SSO with GSSAPI, basic auth with LDAP, PAM, NIS etc., no authentication, peer 
cache only etc.), and I don't see a reason to pull in samba-common by default, 
when it saves the admin very little effort.


More information about the Mageia-dev mailing list