lib_3p system

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:52:38PM -0400, Ira Cooper wrote:
> 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.
It's for both, at least not at the moment.

If you'd like to change that, and have the third party stuff somewhere
else, can we please call that "third_party/" ? "Libraries" is also
a misleading name since some of the third party stuff we bundle are
things like Python modules.

>  > 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.
This will make building Samba from git more painful for anybody who
has a system that currently lacks one of these bundled libraries.

I can see the value in being able to build without any bundled
libraries, mostly for packagers and developers verifying we don't
accidentally rely on bundled libraries. It's not worth inconveniencing
regular users who are trying to build Samba.

Cheers,

Jelmer
-- 
Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> - https://jelmer.co.uk/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20140717/848906c4/attachment.pgp>