obnox at samba.org
Thu Jul 17 08:45:17 MDT 2014
On 2014-07-17 at 10:24 -0400, Ira Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Michael Adam <obnox at samba.org> wrote:
> > On 2014-07-17 at 15:45 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>>lib_3p stands for "Libraries, Third Party." "external" is a bit too
> > vague
> > > >>>>for this use. I really want an exact meaning.
> > > >>
> > > >>lib/ is for the first party libraries.
> > What are second party libraries, btw?
> First Party:You.
> Second Party: Others in the licensing agreement.
> (This is none in our case.)
Sorry, but I am still uncertain what this means. :-}
Can you give an example (of a different project of course)?
> Third Party: All others.
> Rarely if ever have I seen second party called out. Usually, you'd call
> them our by name. Third Parties are usually lumped together. (or they'd
> be second!)
> > > To be honest, I don't care much about lib/ or not, but _3p was
> > > drastically non-obvious to me. The subject looked like the patches
> > > were about a possibly vendor-specific file system or the like
> > > (storage products like 3par would come to mind).
> > >
> > > It's not like the few extra characters cost a lot of bandwidth :)
> > Same here, I was puzzled about 3p until I read down in the thread. :-)
> Ok, request to change name ACKed. It takes a few requests for me to ACK a
> name change in particular because they tend to be bike shed discussions.
> Once I can see a clear consensus, and reasons from more than one person...
> I'll make a change.
> > - I think it should _not_ go under ./lib/ (see above).
> > - My current vote would be for "./thirdparty/
> We are inconsistent with what we call things as far as using a '_', '-', or
> nothing at all. Alas, that is a bit of a pain.
> I'm going to be arbitrary, and say we all lose.
> third-party it is!
Fine by me.
> Due to the name change I'll restructure the commits, to be more clear,
> though it'll result in much more churn, the goal of the changes will be
> highlight the build system changes to support the changes. Review should
> be much easier even if you can't deal with the large moves etc.
As discussed elsewhere, I am all for more commits,
one per subsystem. These will be more obvious.
Other than that, the changes apart from moving the files,
i.e. the changes to the wscript* things and the bogus include
fix look reasonable and also nice and small so far, so I don't
thing there will be much general criticism for that part.
The idea to just recurse into third-party/ if it is there, is
Cheers - Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the samba-technical