lib_3p system

[Ira Cooper]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 07:03:55PM -0400, Ira Cooper wrote:
> > In all the work I've been asked for my rationale for the work I am done.
> >
> > It is about cleanliness and solid software engineering.  We can't be sure
> > we AREN'T using libraries that are totally integrated into our build
> > system.  While we can try, and we can claim, the true proof is removing
> > them.
> >
> > In the interests of doing this, I've actually gone ahead and removed
> them,
> > on a branch. and put in support for downloading a tar file, manually.
> >
> > The first patch on my new branch shows a file that was including our
> local
> > popt headers, instead of following and finding the system ones.  I
> suspect
> > it is the only one, but until there is more testing on more systems, I
> > won't feel truly sure of that.
> >
> > If we wish to support a "fat" tarball for our releases, that is fine.
>  But
> > for day to day to development, the intent of this change is to make it so
> > developers who don't wish to have these libraries or their sources on
> their
> > system, do not have them there.
> >
> > If you want more rationale than Simo's rationale, Jeremy's and Volker's,
> I
> > suggest you look at my first patch on this branch.  It shows what I truly
> > fear.  Insidious errors.  This error was innocent it looks like...
> > thankfully.
> >
> > This is why I do not support third party libraries in the tree.  These
> type
> > of mistakes are too easy to make, and too easy to tempt ourselves into.
> >
> > Git branch is at:
> >
> > http://git.samba.org/?p=ira/wip.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/lib_3p
> >
> > The supporting "lib_3p" tar file:
> >
> > http://www.samba.org/~ira/lib_3p.tar  (This should move to a better
> > location and be versioned etc, if we do this.)
> >
> > I'll construct the actual git repo to go with the tarfile tomorrow.
> >
> > I suggest you look at the code, and the overall concept.  I think you'll
> > find it a vast improvement, and a solid middle ground.
> >
> > (Yes, this is a request for review, and comments.)
>
> Really nice work ! Can you add your 'Signed-off-by'
> to it please ?
>
> I'm certainly happy with the first 2 patches, and
> looks like we're still discussing/converging around
> patch #3.
>

The lack of Signed-off-by: is an error, I can re-push with them if people
are willing to tolerate the rebase.

-Ira