Patch to remove zlib.

Jelmer Vernooij jelmer at
Thu Jul 10 04:51:25 MDT 2014

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:49:25PM +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 07:17:59AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 01:38:52AM +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > > If we're going to support two different configurations, I think it
> > > would be easier to support one with system zlib and one with bundled zlib
> > > as we do at the moment, rather than librpc with zlib and without zlib.
> > 
> > We have such a flexible build system these days. Why is it
> > difficult to make it such that we just don't support the AD
> > DC without zlib? Correct me please if I'm wrong: We depend
> > on zlib for compressing DRSUAPI data in a Win2k compatible
> > manner only, that's my understanding. Neither our file
> > server nor our domain client (winbind) does this. I don't
> > see why smbd should strictly depend on zlib when it's not
> > used in that code at all. Please explain!
> It's not just the build system that is affected. We also have a testsuite that
> will have to cope with some builds that don't support certain NDR features -
> and we should probably get some buildfarm machines to build without zlib. Users
> will get confused becaused their carefully built Samba somehow doesn't support
> AD, or their OpenChange doesn't work.
> If we want to support systems without zlib installed, then the
> current status quo (with Samba optionally using a bundled zlib) is so bad.
This should of course be "then the current status quo is no so bad".



More information about the samba-technical mailing list