[Review Request] libwbclient-sssd

[Michael Adam]

On 2014-06-18 at 16:38 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:38:39PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 03:37:13PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:55:02PM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Andrew, Michael, Jeremy,
> > > > 
> > > > thank you for your comments and suggestions. I got the impression that
> > > > you prefer that this library will be maintained outside of the samba
> > > > tree. If you agree I will port the common code and my additions to the
> > > > SSSD build system and maintain it in the SSSD tree.
> > > > 
> > > > I will be looking for discussions about the new winbind interface on
> > > > this mailing-list and try to contribute.
> > > 
> > > No, I didn't say that!

But I did. :-)

Let me explain my thoughts a litte more:

I think that it is conceptually wrong to have the sssd wbclient
library not with the sssd server (where it belongs) but in samba code.

I understand the reason, and that may be considered a design
problem, namely that we have the test infrastructure along
with the reference implementation (i.e. winbindd). Maybe the
solution would be to publish the libwbclient-test code
separately, or at least create a package with it that one can . :-)

And I don't see how libwbclient_sssd being in the samba tree will
help a lot with regards to changing the wbclient API: libwbclient_sssd
will always be running with a released version of samba, i.e.
against a published version. I understand that libwbclient_sssd
would have to be adapted while we go along modifying samba
internally, and this feels wrong. It would also *require* any
Samba developer who changes libwbclient API to change the
libwbclient_sssd implementation at the same time when it is
(as you proposed) integrated in our selftest/autobuild. And this
would require also setting up sssd and testing that the server
still works. I don't quite see that we are there yet.

Of course, even with the libwbclient_sssd external, the sssd
developers will by the overlap with the samba development be
part of the process of modifying the libwbclient API, and are
most welcome to join the discussion and design for a good one.

All that being said, I will gladly accept being proven wrong.
And I will look at the patches. From the first superficial
glance, they look very clean.

> > yes, as I said I think there are good reasons to include it in the samba
> > tree until a new winbind API is available and I'd be happy to be an
> > active maintainer of this library until then.
> 
> It would be nice if someone can review the patches. I think as an
> external contributer I need two reviews. I have rebased my git tree at
> http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/sbose/public_git/samba.git/log/ to a recent
> version of the samba master tree. Shall I send the patches to the list
> as well?

Not necessary for me personally, but others may
have a different preference.

> It would be easy to ask some of my Red Hat co-workers to do the review
> but I was hoping for others as well to not make this a Red Hat only
> party.

That is very decent!

Please give us a couple of days to try and find
the time to review...

Cheers - Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20140618/3fa92419/attachment.pgp>