[PATCHES] Generate shorter name for extra python files

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Mon Jul 24 15:54:59 UTC 2017

On (22/07/17 13:43), Andrew Bartlett via samba-technical wrote:
>On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 15:46 +0200, Stefan Metzmacher via samba-
>technical wrote:
>> Hi Lukas,
>> > > as this will take a bit to discuss, I'll prepare new talloc, tevent
>> > > and ldb releases without this.
>> > > 
>> > > We need an ldb release for 4.7.0rc3 which is planed for next Tuesday.
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > I thought I answer all questions and Abrew wrote that:
>> > "(in that respect, I've not done a full review)"
>> > 
>> > I am not sure how to move this forward. Or where is a problem.
>> > But I would really appreciate solution which works for upstream
>> > and all downstream debian, fedora ...
>> It's just time, some people are/will be on vacation, so it takes a bit
>> of time to have a solid solution.
>> We should not rush this into the release on Thursday. There will
>> be at least 1 or 2 rc's before 4.7.0.
>> But the most important thing is that we should not add a solution
>> to ldb-1.2.1, which we than have to revert for ldb-1.2.2.
>I agree, we need to get this right.  Skipping it for rc3 should be
>This area is complex, and I've been (rather unsuccessfully ;-) on leave
>for the past couple of weeks, and it need some serious thought, and I
>think the input of the original author to understand the original
Do you mean purpose what was purpose of ABI/*.sigs instead of writing
version script directly? Or something related to names for extra
python util libraries.

>Then we need to publish the ABI files and binaries, then add a new
>function, re-publish and check it actually works, the new function is
>tagged with the new version, the old functions untagged in the ABI, the
>.so and then the thing debian uses to track those. 

Do you mean something like removing pytalloc_BaseObject_check
from pytalloc-util-2.1.6.sigs, pytalloc-util-2.1.7.sigs
pytalloc-util-2.1.8.sigs ?

It would be like moving pytalloc-util-2.1.6.sigs from 2.1.6
to 2.1.9. Which sounds a little bit simpler to me for testing purposes.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list