Removal of zlib, take 2.
Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Wed Jul 16 05:31:41 MDT 2014
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 06:12:02AM -0400, Ira Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:56:25PM -0400, Ira Cooper wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:58:03AM -0400, Ira Cooper wrote:
> > > > > Code for review is at:
> > > > >
> > http://git.samba.org/?p=ira/wip.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/zlib_removal
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the "remove zlib, and break all systems without zlib"
> > version.
> > > I refreshed the branch, check the new check.
> > The checks in the current branch look reasonable to me.
> Can I get a final review on this to get it pushed?
At some point, I'd love to see this happen, but only at the end of
a larger project: In another thread where Andrew asked for specific
decoupling tasks I raised that I'd love to see a much cleaner separation
between what the AD DC, the file server and our client utils need. Neither
our file server, nor the "normal" client utils nor winbind use the code
that requires zlib at all. I can 100% agree to not building an AD DC
if zlib is not around, everyone trying to build that can reasonably be
asked to install a few dependencies first. But our bread-and-butter
business at least from my point of view is still the file server and
AD member. And making that to build harder than strictly necessary is
a strict no-go for me.
So, if in a next iteration of this patchset just the AD DC components
are disabled (probably with a prominent message), but the rest still
builds fine without zlib, you get my +1.
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kontakt at sernet.de
More information about the samba-technical