Where is the talloc repository?
obnox at samba.org
Tue Mar 15 07:51:22 UTC 2016
On 2016-03-14 at 20:57 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 06:11:55PM +0100, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> > On Monday 14 March 2016 15:25:45 Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > > There's one problem I have with the approach (among others): We will
> > > have to fix both waf AND CMakefiles once we have split out tdb. See what
> > > happened to the wrappers once they were taken out of Samba.
> > I'm sorry but I do not understand the relation between waf, cmake and tdb
> > here.
> Once the wrappers have been split out, they have grown cmakefiles. Because
> we also need the wrappers in Samba, both cmakefiles *and* waf rules need
> to be maintained.
Correct, for the wrappers, we have different build systems for
the own repo and for the samba-in-tree version. And this _does_
create problems and friction. And it was done in a past that it
was introduced in a kind of subobtimal way.
> I would say it is highly likely that this will happen
> with talloc, tevent and tdb too. Waf is not your favourite build system,
> and once you are free to put in cmake I don't think you'll be able to
> resist converting them to cmake.
I don't think so. As has been said before, this will not be the
case for the core libs: In case of a split-out, the Samba Team
can and should establish mechanisms and policies from preventing
this to happen. Also the core libs already have their own waf
I think even if someone would _like_ to change the build system
after splitting out, if the samba team does the splitting and
policies right, the chances of achieving it would be as high as
being able to exchange the build system of the lib inside the
Also bare in mind what other things Andreas wrote in his last mail:
> > All I'm asking about is to move talloc to its own repository. I'm
> > not the maintainer of tevent nor did I ever contribute much to
> > it. I think you, Metze and Jeremy mostly maintain it and I never
> > heard of of any plan to move away from waf for talloc.
> > I'm asking the people who work mostly on talloc to make the life
> > of packagers easier and move it its own repository. I also think
> > it makes it easier to follow the project and see what is going
> > on. Currently you have to read all samba-commits and check if
> > there are talloc related changes.
That explains the motivations. I don't think the motivation here
is to take control over the core libs. But of course this is
subject to a personal level of trust. :-)
And as said above, that level of (mis)trust can be backed
by appropriated policies and mechanisms to protect the state.
As for the decision whether to actually do the split-out, I am
personally somewhat indifferent, but I can very well understand
that this split would make several things easier for various
people. It would also make it more easy to separetly advertise
the projects. Which of course would only be of benefit if we
_want_ external consumers of these really cool pieces of
Not sure what the next steps are, I think this thread was more of
a "what would people think?" than a formal vote request. It
would create some extra work on the Samba-Team side, I guess. And
reduce some work and uncertainty on the outside. Mainly the
people who would need to do the extra work would need to be
identified and heard...
Cheers - Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the samba-technical