Moving basic libs to a new repo and release them as a separate package

Jelmer Vernooij jelmer at vernstok.nl
Thu Feb 23 20:54:09 GMT 2006


On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 09:26:14PM +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote about 'Re: Moving basic libs to a new repo and release them as a separate package':
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 02:55:24PM -0500, simo wrote about 'Moving basic libs to a new repo and release them as a separate package':
> > In the Samba Project we created a number of tools that are not only very
> > useful and shared between our branches, but also interesting for other
> > projects.

> > I would like to propose we move the current ldb, tdb and talloc
> > libraries to a new branch named samba-base-libs or something like that
> > and release them as .so/.a libraries. Then make our Samba trees check
> > for them to be installed on the system and require them to build and run
> > them.

> > Being a separate project I see some advantages:
> > - Other projects will find it easier to adopt the software as they will
> >   find it easier to provide it to their user in a tiny package without
> >   requiring them to install samba
> > - More testing/development coming from other projects
> > - Better sharing inside the various team trees, fixes flows into the
> >   separate libraries and we do not risk to miss fixes from one branch
> >   to the other
> > - Stabilization of the interfaces

> > I think tdb and talloc are mature good candidates, ldb is still under
> > being actively worked on but there is a lot of interest in it outside
> > the samba team so providing it as a separate tool even in beta stages
> > seem good thing to me.

> > I'd like comments on this proposal, from all the interested parties.
> I think more codesharing between Samba 3, Samba 4
> and other projects. However, some things that come to mind that might
> be problematic:

>  - What to do about platforms that don't have libraries (shared nor
>    static)?

> I guess the number of platforms that don't have either of those is so
> small these days that we could simply abort support for such
> platforms. I think Stratos VOS is probably the only one.

>  - How would this change the actions a user has to perform to compile
>    Samba? Would it simply mean an extra build step?

> We could perhaps automate this a bit and include these libraries in
> the Samba3 and Samba4 tarballs so only developers will have to check
> them out separetely.
svn:externals could be very useful here
(http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch07s03.html) to share parts of
the code tree between Samba3 and Samba4 transparently, which could
make stuff like this pretty transparent to folks that do a SVN
checkout.

Cheers,

Jelmer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20060223/09c42f3e/attachment.bin


More information about the samba-technical mailing list