[PATCH] A (possibly controverial) proposal: Remove autoconf build of public shared libraries

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 12:14 +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> >> Thanks Jeremy, I really do appreciate your support. 
> >>
> >> I wondered if you or others on the list could help me with the last part
> >> of my draft statement, that is a survey of what features are important
> >> to users who need to retain access to the autoconf build system.  Could
> >> you use your contacts in our OEM community to help me understand what
> >> their needs are?
> >>
> >> Are these users (for example) in need of libsmbclient and libnet?  Do
> >> they need us to publish libtdb and libtalloc for use in the system?  Is
> >> libsmbsharemodes (which depends on both of these) important?  (I
> >> certainly expect that due to the way nss_winbind and pam_winbind work,
> >> that libwbclient would be important. )
> >>
> >> Or do users who cannot run the waf build just want the suite of Samba
> >> binaries, statically linked?
> >>
> >> The reason I'm asking about libraries specifically is that I'm concerned
> >> that we have unnecessary and potentially problematic duplication here.
> >> We certainly need a way to make Samba install on a system without
> >> libtalloc for example, but should we have two different ways that a
> >> libtalloc could be installed onto the system, potentially for
> >> system-wide use?
> > 
> > To illustrate this point, I'm interested in hearing from anybody who
> > would be impacted by this series of proposed patches.
> > 
> > In short, it removes the production of the public shared libraries from
> > the autoconf build, except for libwbclient. 
> > 
> 
> For the libraries which can be build standalone, talloc, tdb, tevent
> I think it's 100% needed to just ever install the standalone ones into
> the system.

Thanks.  As you reminded me on IRC, this would match the waf build,
which will only produce a public library in the individual build systems
for tevent, talloc, tdb etc.  

> For the rest we should think about possible users, are there any non Linux
> users of libsmbclient or libnetapi?

There seem to be references to libsmbclient on FreeBSD, but as FreeBSD
is one of our 'must work' platforms for waf, that shouldn't be an issue.

The real questions is are there non-waf-compatible users of
libsmbclient, libnetapi or libsmbsharemodes.  That's why I asked
originally, but I can't think of a plausible case that would need these
libraries, and can't run waf. 

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org