Is there a reason to have source4 in 3.4 releases?

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 13:20 +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > Since Samba 3.4 has been released, I've now seen two different enquires
> > where folks have expected to find a 'released' version of Samba4 in the
> > 3.4 tarball.
> 
> Hmmm, is this because of the ".4" in the version number?
> 
> > Is there any reason for the source4 tree to be released in Samba 3.4
> > releases?  Users of Samba4 from that branch are only going to be
> > disappointed (as it is will be an increasingly older snapshot), and the
> > work for 'Franky' and other combined tree efforts is occouring in
> > master, not the 3.4 release tree.
> 
> It is certainly right that the development continues in master,
> but with 3.4 including source4/ you _can_ do a merged build, and build the
> smbtorture4 tool, for instance.

I hadn't thought about smbtorture4.  That makes things more complicated.

> As for the reasons, let me quote from the release notes:
> 
> >> On the way towards a standalone Samba AD domain controller, Samba3 and Samba4
> >> branches can be built as "merged" build. That's why Samba3 and Samba4 sources
> >> are included in the tarball. The merged build is possible in Samba 3.4.0, but
> >> disabled by default. To learn more about the merged build,
> >> please see http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Franky.
> >> 
> >> According to this one, there is no "source" directory included in the tarball at
> >> all. Samba3 sources are located in "source3", Samba4 sources are located in
> >> "source4". The libraries have been moved to the toplevel directory.
> >> 
> >> To build plain Samba3, please change to "source3" and start the build as usual.
> >> To build Samba4 as well, please use the "--enable-merged-build" configure
> >> option.
> 
> It could of course have been made even clearer that
> the release refers to the source3/ subtree.
> But well it is a Samba3 release, so it should actually
> be pretty obvious.

Sadly, what is obvious to us is far from to users.  You could label the
folder 'danger-dragons-never-ever-touch' and still have people ask about
it.

> If we should decide to remove the source4/ tree, we would
> also have to change samba3's configure to not touch it at all
> (remove merged build and so on).

I would strongly support that.  It would be unfortunate if more folks
started asking us to support this 'release', when for the Samba4 side of
things it's nothing more than an old snapshot. 

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20090715/823cfe94/attachment.pgp>