[Mageia-dev] new samba-squid subpackage proporsal

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.
+
+Regards,
+Buchan
+