Maybe I don't understand the ubuntu policy - you really merge these bug fixes "manually" instead of using the bugfix versions?
Sure there'll be no samba 3.2 in hardy - I didn't mean that.
And maybe it's the wrong place for a discussion, but couls you explain the policy (maybe with a link to an explanation?) why hardy NOT gets the newest bug fix versions (I don't mean "newest versions" in general!)
But IMO many programs are outdated - not because there are not the newest stable versions in the repos (like here samba 3.2) - but because there are not the newest bugfix versions in the repos (like here 3.0.32).
oops, sorry, I used the wrong link. www.samba. org/samba/ history/ samba-3. 0.32.html www.samba. org/samba/ history/ samba-3. 0.31.html www.samba. org/samba/ history/ samba-3. 0.30.html www.samba. org/samba/ history/ samba-3. 0.29.html
But you can watch the changelogs at
http://
http://
http://
http://
They are just bug fixes.
Maybe I don't understand the ubuntu policy - you really merge these bug fixes "manually" instead of using the bugfix versions?
Sure there'll be no samba 3.2 in hardy - I didn't mean that.
And maybe it's the wrong place for a discussion, but couls you explain the policy (maybe with a link to an explanation?) why hardy NOT gets the newest bug fix versions (I don't mean "newest versions" in general!)
But IMO many programs are outdated - not because there are not the newest stable versions in the repos (like here samba 3.2) - but because there are not the newest bugfix versions in the repos (like here 3.0.32).