To release Samba 4.0 'as is'
abartlet at samba.org
Wed Nov 23 14:05:10 MST 2011
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 13:58 +0100, Kai Blin wrote:
> On 2011-11-23 04:32, Andrew Tridgell wrote:
> > Hi Jeremy,
> >> -1. We can't do this. It isn't an integrated product yet, it's
> >> just a grab bag of non-integrated features.
> > I don't get this. The same binaries with the same behaviour as we
> > have now will be part of this release. We will also have a major
> > new feature, being an AD DC, and if you setup a DC then you get
> > different file serving capabilities.
> I'm not sure that is the case. We do build all that stuff with waf now,
> not with autobuild, and I'm not sure we're at a point where the builds
> _are_ identical in behavior. There's still this weird pkg-config issue
> with installed system libraries in the wrong version still ending up
> being used, I wonder what other beasts are hiding in the shadows.
Are you still seeing the pkg-config issues? I saw patches for that go
in recently, but I think the list of libraries that should only use
pkg-config should be expanded (currently just our Samba libs and
> > The same thing happened when we added support for clustering. If
> > you didn't use clustering then you got the existing features. If
> > you did use clustering then some existing features (eg. printing)
> > did not work correctly.
> The only way we can reliably do this at the current point seems to be to
> tell people to decide at build time, and keep using the autoconf build
> for the file server build for now, at least if our goal is to get 4.0
> out of the door as quickly as possible. Otherwise we're looking at a
> massive QA effort here, one that I'd hate to force on those users that
> just want to keep running a file server.
Assuming we are to eventually release with the waf build, how would you
propose to overcome this?
> > no, their existing setups just keep working. It is only if they
> > decide to setup an AD DC that things change.
> Which currently might not be true, because the build systems differ.
> I'm pretty convinced that on a box like sn-devel the differences are
> negligible, but on a box not set up for samba development, the
> situation might differ.
> Having said that, I think that's a great point to start rolling out a
> couple of smbd file servers from the top level build for testinng. :)
I do look forward to seeing your results.
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
More information about the samba-technical