Yes, I compiled samba_client 3.0.37 in Slackware 13.1 (Slackpup) and the Quirky build did not use that, went looking for a suitable PET and found one from the Puppy-4 repo.
Although I compiled samba_client-3.0.37 in Slackpup, I think that it should work in all puppies, so I have changed the database entry of the package so that it will get chosen by all Woof builds. The package is now 'samba_client-3.0.37.pet' and it's db entry is now:
samba_client-3.0.37|samba_client|3.0.37||BuildingBlock|1008K|pet_packages-quirky|samba_client-3.0.37.pet||samba client utilities, note, compiled in slackware 13.1 but should work in all puppies|||official|
...that is, I took out the "|slackware|13.1|" in the third and second-last fields. This makes it generic, so The Woof build scripts will always choose it.
Comments:Posted on 21 Sep 2010, 18:44 by gcmartin
Any thoughts on how SAMBA server should be introduced into the lineup?
Posted on 21 Sep 2010, 19:07 by gcmartin
Barry, I apologize for asking the above question because my lack of knowledge on Woof may make that question inappropriate (because it already may be there and I am unaware of its presence).
But, in all due respect, SAMBA currently sits at version 3.5.5 (stable). If Puppy has a full SAMBA version in WOOF (not just the SAMBA client) would the full SAMBA take over the functions of the SAMBA client?
As you can see from my question I have NO install experience. And, I just jumping in on trying to get up to speed so that I can help.
Posted on 21 Sep 2010, 20:15 by BarryK
The full Samba package can be installed and there is no conflict. The client files are just part of the full package.
The reason we don't put the full package built-in to Puppy is because of it's size.
It is also because of size that we use an older version (3.0.37 currently in Wary and Slackpup).
An exception is samba-tng, which is small enough to put the full package into Puppy, but we haven't done that. There are outstanding questions about samba-tng regarding it's compatibility with latest standards.