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

[simo]

On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 09:13 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:

> One of the things that might be a concern though is the fact that the
> URLs to the libraries in SVN are different for 'regular' users and
> people with commit access (regular users have svn://, developers have 
> svn+ssh://). Since we don't want to lock out users who do a checkout, we'll 
> have to set the svn:externals to the svn:// URL, meaning we can't do
> commits in svn:externals trees.

I think this is only a good thing, if we cannot commit, we cannot break
it by mistake.


> Either way (even with svn:externals), we'll have some sort of
> top-level configure script that runs configure in the directories of
> all the libraries and recursive make. I don't think that would be too
> bad.

Not bad I'm sure.

> >  - actually having the exact same source repository for some libs
> >    between Samba3 and Samba4 might prove problematic, as it means that
> >    checkins in one tree could break the other, so it raises the burden
> >    of testing. With the manual merge we have the opportunity to
> >    identify these things and fix them.
> 
> > The 3rd problem might not be significant for talloc, which has a
> > pretty well defined API by now, but it could well be tricky for
> > tdb. We have historically done quite a few hackish things (such as the
> > alarm timelimit code) in tdb that could well break the other tree.
> All three libraries have their own (seperate) testsuites and (should)
> have a stable API. In case of optional features, we could simply add a
> configure flag and not that from both branches.

exactly, for example initially, we will probably have a --samba4 config
option that enables our #ifdefs, with time I'd like to see that moved
out somehow so that we do not need it, but there's nothing bad in it,
as we already have all the code correctly #ifdefed right now.

> > I think that we should have official releases of these packages
> > though. So it would be good if users could download ldb-1.0.tar.gz
> > somewhere, and talloc-1.0.tar.gz. Even better if the distros pick
> > these up.
> It would be very nice to see that, indeed. 

Yes, very.

I see 2 big tasks that need to accomplished.
1. Produce the configure modifications needed for the transition
2. Check the buildfarm is ok with them (here I propose the buildfarm
always compile the libs itself)
3. Verify our .h files so that we do not have problems with them

Tridge, about stability, a good suggestion has been made, that we link
to svn tags/branches externally.
This way SAMBA_3_0 will always point to a released library version and
jerry can check everything works correctly without fear that new
modifications breaks things without him knowing.
Samba 4 instead will always link to the last external branch (probably
trunk during development) on releases so that it can continue to grow
and change the API without worrying too much. Once we stabilize some new
feature, we release a minor/major lib version and jerry will choose,
when/if to pick up the new version.

Is this ok ?

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: idra at samba.org
http://samba.org