idra at samba.org
Sun Dec 4 16:26:44 MST 2011
On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 09:58 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-12-03 at 22:03 -0500, simo wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 12:36 +1100, Brad Hards wrote:
> > > On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 10:24:52 AM simo wrote:
> > > > External projects should probably always include "samba/util.h" and we
> > > > should probably have a symlink from include/samba-4.0 -> include/samba
> > > > so that when we get to 4.1 we do not break everything.
> > > That wouldn't be sufficient. The problem was that some of the samba (installed)
> > > headers included "util.h" which will work or break depending on the order of
> > > the -I's in the library user.
> > Samba headers should probably do the same :)
> The only user looking for an unqualified util.h was in Heimdal looking
> for the MacOS X header, and while I agree that Samba headers should be
> referenced like "samba/util.h" and be unavailable simply as "util.h".
> Even if we sort this out for our internal use, I would also prefer to
> avoid a situation where an external user only finds the build bug on one
> particular platform.
> I also think we need to rethink the samba-util library and util.h -
> exporting a large variety of utility functions has helped bootstrap
> OpenChange, but we do need to decide which functions we really wish to
> promise to provide long term and in what form, and how to handle the
> impact that will have on OpenChange.
Agreed, we expose too much internal stuff that has to remain flexible.
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>
More information about the samba-technical