Comment 13 for bug 1894618

@sergiodj

Thank you for addressing this matter. I think this is more a matter of different opinions than a technical one, because technically there are different ways, all discussed above, on how this can be resolved.

Thinking about Ubuntu mission, you said "we strive to provide good quality packages", but from the end user point of view we can only consider a samba package that is missing the glusterfs module as really poor quality. Some have already stated that this issue forced them to switch to CentOS/RedHat who solved this problem.

As I said above, this can be resolved easily by just including the missing module without referencing the dependency in the package. Users are wise enough to know that they need glusterfs client. On the other end, if you want to force the dependency, what is the matter with having glusterfs installed (and not used at users' discretion) when samba is installed? There is already so much fuff installed that we don't know anything about, that one more package does not make a real difference to anyone, but would make a positive difference to the large community now demanding samba with glusterfs.