What exactly makes tdb2 hard to package (ccan?)
abartlet at samba.org
Mon Apr 9 00:59:55 MDT 2012
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 16:08 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> I've been told that the issues with bundled ccan libs are still causing
> issues for distributors, so I've come up with a patch that I think
> should help. I'm doing this so we can separate these issues from any
> other discussion around tdb2, as I think there are technical build
> system issues we can address.
> These patches re-introduce the private library extension (-samba4, -ldb,
> etc), but only for ccan. This is on the basis (which I need to confirm)
> that ccan has no static data that would cause an issue if duplicated.
> Libraries with important static data like talloc are not renamed, and
> will deliberately cause a library conflict as pre previous behaviour.
> (BTW, Linux distributors should not bundle or distribute libreplace, but
> instead depend on libbsd).
> Please let me know if this helps. The patches are attached, and in
In order to test this, I added a mode to autobuild that tries to build
'distribution style' Samba, that is based on 'system libraries' (in a
private prefix in this case).
This should be in master soon, and should help us avoid regressions that
have often hit distributors and OpenChange. This patch uses tdb1, as
this is what all distributors use, so it is an important use case to
Then, I've then applied the attached patch to test building with tdb2,
which I was expecting to fail. It still passes, without any of the work
I mention above.
So, I'm a little stumped. Can someone describe the 'linux distribution
packaging' failure mode here? (preferably in the form of a patch, so I
can reliable test it)?
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3325 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the samba-technical