[RFC] Strategies for CTDB integration into Samba
obnox at samba.org
Fri Oct 24 07:23:37 MDT 2014
Triggered by another mail thread, would like to officially
start the discussion or clarification, where we are heading
with the integrated CTDB.
What we have already done:
- CTDB code was intergrated into Samba code, because
it is not (yet?) a project of its own.
For instance, parts of the client implementation are
in the samba code.
- CTDB's build system has been converted to waf, and
some of the duplicated libraries have been removed.
- As of recently, the top level samba build has been
extended to also build ctdb.
- CTDB has no version number of its own any more but
will be released along with Samba as a component
in the future, starting with 4.2.
What is going on:
- Amitay has just (re)proposed patches that remove
the ability to build against older ctdb versions
and maybe with the intention to disable the ability
to build against external ctdb versions at all.
(I think not quite achieved.)
- autobuild needs to be adapted. Will post a patch.
- Selftest needs to be augmented to run the samba-ctdb stack.
==> I need to revive, finish and propose my
clustered-samba selftest branches.
The question is now: Where do we want to go?
If we logcically pursue this path, I think the next steps
- to really disable the possibility to build
against an external ctdb.
- maybe to make sure that samba is always build with ctdb.
- to disable the standalone build of ctdb.
This will make things a lot easier for our development
and make it much more clear, also to the distributors
and other consumers that ctdb is now considered a component
of samba that is only shipped and released as such.
We may need to guide the distributors and other consumers
how to make the change.
This will make it also much easier to continue the way some
of us envision namely to integrate ctdb's clustering
more and more into samba, maybe splitting various
components out of ctdb, and removing the strict distinction
between ctdb and samba in the long run...
Any comments or strong objections?
Otherwise, I think we should go that way.
Cheers - Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the samba-technical