lib_3p system

[Ira Cooper]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Michael Adam <obnox at samba.org> wrote:

> On 2014-07-18 at 08:33 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
> > On 17/07/14 19:49, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> >
> > >Just a point - I believe there are fewer
> > >'regular users who are trying to build Samba' these days.
> > >Although it's more popular with Samba4 than it
> > >has been for years, due to the new AD feature.
> >
> > I think there's a decent number, seeing how e.g. Fedora-derived
> > distros don't build AD features at all. Sure, if I just need a file
> > server, and I don't care about the latest, greatest SMB 3.x
> > features, system packages work just fine.
> >
> > >Mostly it's packagers and distros I think.
> > >This is merely anecdotal data, I don't have
> > >hard numbers - but I think self-building
> > >users are a smaller and smaller part of our
> > >customers these days.
> >
> > Just keep in mind that you're mainly talking to file server users. :)
>
> I can't recall seeing users of samba4-ad who build
> samba manually, but I'd say of all the fileserver customers
> I dealt with in the recent past, some 10-20 percent do build
> manually from the sources rather than using any packages,
> and not only on exotic unixes but als on Linux.
>

The Linux users, and *BSD users are actually the ones we really *do not*
want using the third_party system.  Anyone who has a system provided source
of the libraries should use that over ours, IMHO.  The point is to make it
so people "default to safe" :).


> That being said, I am personally fine with removing the
> 3rdP-libs, but providing instructions on how to obtain them,
> ideally in the form of a script (like the "update-external.sh
> mentioned by Jelmer, possibly one for each lib), and checked in
> to the samba tree, would be a minimum we should to provide. We
> need something for the build farm anyways. That mechanism could
> put the libs in the third-party directory and drop wscript
> portions there so that we can then recurse as in Ira's patches.
>

I'll take the "per lib" as review feedback, right now, it is all or nothing
as far as if you installed third_party or not.  (I consider this a minor
safety thing.  If they don't match well enough that it works... I don't
mind stopping the user.  They can always choose which libraries as today.)
 I'm on the fence on this... It is easy to change either way.

Also with no current official place to put the libraries... I can put in
ways to change it, and point it at my "unofficial" repos, but I don't think
we wish to check that into master. :)  I'll need some help to setup the
real repo for third_party.

Please get back to me with feedback on how you want the above issue to work
so the next set of patches I push are ready for that magical, Reviewed-by:
line. :)

Note: The current patch is being refactored into something more
intelligible.  It'll take me another day or two to do, just due to my life
and work finally catching up with me.

Thanks,

-Ira