ira at samba.org
Wed Jul 16 18:25:21 MDT 2014
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
> > 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
> > popt headers, instead of following and finding the system ones. I
> > 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.
> > 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
> > system, do not have them there.
> > If you want more rationale than Simo's rationale, Jeremy's and Volker's,
> > 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
> > 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.
More information about the samba-technical