A DRAFT statement on our build systems for Samba 4.0

[Alexander Bokovoy]

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 20:54 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 01:42:46PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>
>> > That is why, despite the demand, I'm hesitant to create a 'not AD DC'
>> > build, because there is challenge in defining where to define the line.
>>
>> Doesn't the "not AD DC" build come naturally when MIT krb5 is
>> selected instead of Heimdal ?
>
> Sort of.  Currently the patches just disable the KDC and a couple of
> other things, but leaves most of the build intact.
>
> You would be correct to note that this could be quite a confusing result
> for our users, and we should probably exclude at least the AD server
> binaries and provisioning tools.
Our goal is to have samba 4 client side deliveries produced with MIT
krb5 build + samba3 file/member server. I tried to minimize number of
disabled components to those absolutely depending on Heimdal and not
being able to work with MIT krb5 for a reason to reduce affected code
paths. However, it means certain functionality will make little sense
without KDC-based parts. These components are still built and
installed but not utilized.

If there is a consensus that these should be disabled, I can make a
separate switch that triggers MIT krb5 configuration and disables
these non-working components as well. We then can call this mode "MIT
krb5" build. There is still need to separate such mode with a pure
switch to MIT krb5 in order to keep possible advancing AD DC
functionality with MIT krb5 when libkdc will become a reality or we
find a way to extend KDC operations in a separate process akin to EPM
work.

-- 
/ Alexander Bokovoy