third_party (ex-lib_3p) now ready for review.

Jeremy Allison jra at
Thu Jul 24 14:45:12 MDT 2014

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 08:39:15AM +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> Yes, I also prefer that. Having a 2nd git repository just makes sure
> things get our of order.
> Removing third-party/ from master gets a clear NACK from me.

NACK on that NACK :-). I don't see any good
technical reasons behind it. Especially as
you propose a technical solution I agree
with below :-).

I think it's very important to remove third_party/
from the tree. Removed code cannot be compiled in by
error. Remember, the goal is to get Samba out
of the third-party maintanence business (as
we're just not doing it).

It isn't as though we're maintaining or updating
that code. Having it available as a separate
git repository that people can pull, or as a
separate tarball that we fetch is enough.

> We can have the release script create an additional
> samba-A.B.C-third-party.tar.gz
> I think we should also have an autobuild target using
> --bundled-libraries=ALL
> to make sure we force the use of the third-party libraries to make sure
> they're usable.

+1 on having an autobuild target that fetches
and builds against the samba-A.B.C-third-party.tar.gz
libraries to ensure we will always build against it, but
I *really* want these out of our tree.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list