lib_3p system

[Ira Cooper]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 09:42:59PM -0400, Ira Cooper wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer 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.)
> > >
> > > Can you rename it to something with a more obvious name? "p3" doesn't
> > > mean anything to me. Perhaps "lib/external" ?
> > >
> > > Please update lib/update-external.sh, which is there to update
> > > some of these libraries. (I've got a pending patch to make it update
> zlib)
> > >
> > > Can you move each library in a separate commit? Git doesn't deal well
> > > with moves of lots of files unless you specify the magic options (see
> > > e.g. the output of "git log lib/zlib").
> > lib_3p stands for "Libraries, Third Party." "external" is a bit too vague
> > for this use.  I really want an exact meaning.
> In that case, what about just naming it lib/third_party or
> lib/3rd_party ?
>

lib/ is for the first party libraries.

 > As far as what I really intend, it was clear I missed a bit on my real
> > intent.
> >
> > Look at http://git.samba.org/?p=ira/lib_3p.git;a=summary ; and you'll
> see
> > the missing piece.
> >
> > The intent is that there is a second git repo, and that all of this data
> is
> > properly kept under SCM.
>
> What's the advantage of a second git repository, versus just removing
> your local copy of lib_3p ?
>


The advantage is to "default to safe".  The first commit shows some of the
danger of leaving lib_3p in the tree.

Long term, hopefully we'll need lib_3p less.  But as long as it is
optional... I'll be happy. :)

-Ira