Samba and Python 3 (Was: Port pytalloc to Python 3)

Petr Viktorin pviktori at
Wed Jan 14 07:35:24 MST 2015

On 01/12/2015 07:46 PM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-01-12 at 15:18 +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>> On 01/12/2015 02:58 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:

>>> That is a good point. I think the only reason we have Python in libsamba-net at
>>> the moment is to invoke the provision scripts. This is not necessary for any of
>>> the client side SMB code. If you just need the client side SMB code,
>>> perhaps we can split libsamba-net, so you can just ship the client-only side?
>> Yes, it might be a packaging-only fix after all. I'm looking into it,
>> it's just going somewhat slowly, as I need to familiarize myself with
>> the codebase at the same time. Thanks Andrew for pushing me in this
>> direction!
> Thanks.  I presume other packages will mean we still have to proceed on
> python-talloc, but at least we can put off the actual samba bindings for
> a little while.  Do we know when python3 is likely to be in RHEL? Samba
> is a conservative project by nature, and I think that moving ahead of
> that would not gain consensus.

Regarding RHEL plans – if I knew them I couldn't tell. But my own 
porting efforts will take RHEL into account.

> That is, we should start the transition no sooner than that RHEL with
> python3 is released, and aim to complete it in one release cycle,
> supporting only one python at the end.  That would give users on older
> systems due notice that they will need to install python3 manually, and
> many supported older versions in the meantime.Presumably FreeIPA
> would be in a similar position when it attempts to transition, and both
> could do it in the same cycle.

Well, getting python3 to RHEL might take some time.
It seems RHEL is the bottleneck and other stakeholders would be OK with 
starting the transition earlier. I'll see if I can find a way to make 
everyone happy.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list