Fwd: Re: [ldb] Re: Moving basic libs to a new repo and release them as a separate package

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Thursday 23 February 2006 23:59, tridge at samba.org wrote:
> I agree that stabilising the API should be a priority. Most of the
> ldb_*() calls haven't changed syntax for a fair while, with the
> notable exception of ldb_request(), which is a lower level call that
> has changed quite a lot. I don't think you're proposing to use that
> call, so you should be OK.

correct

> How do you think you'll approach putting ldb in kde4 if you decide to
> go ahead with that? Will you point a section of the KDE svn tree at
> samba.org via svn:externals ? Or maybe import periodically ? Or maybe
> have configure tests to check for specific features/versions and use
> your own copy as a fallback?

if ldb is generally available as a .so then i'll simply add a configure check
for ldb and if it exists (and, if it becomes necessary, in the correct
version) then build the ldb backend for kconfig. nice thing is that if we say
"we require it as a .so" then it generally will be widely available as
a .so ;)

this way kde won't need our own separate copy of the lib in svn.kde.org (we
 do try and avoid that as much as possible) and all development can continue
 in svn.samba.org as the definitive home of the project.

that would be my preference, anyways, and in line with our usual practices.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

Full time KDE developer sponsored by Trolltech (http://www.trolltech.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20060224/f26edc4c/attachment.bin