[PATCH] Make AD DC build require Jannsson JSON libs, fix fileserver without it

[Rowland Penny]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:49:00 -0700
Jeremy Allison via samba-technical <samba-technical at lists.samba.org>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 07:35:45PM +0200, Ralph Böhme wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 09:44:32AM -0700, Jeremy Allison via
> > samba-technical wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 04:04:18PM +0200, Björn Baumbach wrote:
> > > > On 06/21/2018 09:00 PM, Andrew Bartlett via samba-technical
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 12:56 +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > > > >> Hi, Andrew!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ./configure --prefix=/root/vlendec/inst --without-ldb-lmdb
> > > > >> --without-json-audit --without-gpgme --without-libarchive
> > > > >>
> > > > >> leads to
> > > > >> What am I doing wrong? Am I missing another configure switch?
> > > > > No, but I think we should just require it for the DC. 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi!
> > > > 
> > > > I do not like the idea to enforce the libjansson as a
> > > > requirement to build the Samba AD DC code.
> > > > 
> > > > I've added the --without-json-audit, because there are several
> > > > systems where the jansson json libraries are not avaiable - at
> > > > least not in the standard repositories.
> > > > 
> > > > I've just looked into the RHEL 6 and SLES 11 repositories -
> > > > there is no libjansson available. Even SLES 11 and RHEL 6 are
> > > > supported systems for the next 4 and 6 years. I would not like
> > > > to loose the option to build a recent Samba AD DC on those
> > > > systems.
> > > 
> > > I don't want the AD-DC code to be held back to the
> > > requirements of much older systems. I'm OK with the
> > > AD-DC requiring json for the auditing, so long as it's
> > > no needed for the fileserver at the moment.
> > 
> > hm, I disagree. I strongly feel that it doesn't add too much
> > upstream maintanance having a --without-json-audit switch that
> > allows building on older systems that are lacking libjansson.
> 
> Yeah but it's json today, it'll be something else
> tomorrow.
> 
> IMHO I think it's OK for the AD-DC to require more packages/resources
> than a fileserver build.
> 
> It's a big complex beast that does a lot of stuff, and it's
> still rapidly under development with more features being added.
> 
> If we try and make it compatible with only the packages available
> on 8+ year old distro's we're going to make development more complex
> than it already is.
> 
> We don't provide support for Samba that's that old. When those
> distros provide support for Samba AD-DC it'll be their job to
> back port the packages needed.
> 
> Jeremy.
> 

I would love to see somebody creating an AD DC on SLES11 or RHEL 6,
they both only come with 3.6.x ;-)

Rowland